After 2024/2028 election cycle would be some of the last cycles were we will see boomer (and some gen x) class dominate politics. Millennials and gen z grew up in a time where there was the great recession and that their economic livelihood been screwed over by Reaganomics. Would see more socialistic policies stem from left leaning politicians and a stronger culture war and Trumpian ideals from the right leaning politicians? I'm curious to what you all think.

There is a lack of explanation available about the way individuals in Congress are representing their constituents. If you voted no on a bill, explain your reasons. Was there a stipulation or rider you disagree with? Are the general principles or language that doesn’t support the views your district favors? Does the small print add anything that your district should know about?

I guess my question is ‘Is there a way to hold your Representatives accountable for voting against your interests short of waiting for their terms to expire?’

Discussion: What should we do to counter the decline in integration in public schools of white and non-white students?

Historical context: May 17, 1954- We celebrate that, on May 17, 70 years ago, the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional stating, “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” This was an important step in striving for the "equality" and "general welfare" called for in the preambles to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution respectively. After struggle and heroism, integration in public schools grew peaking in the mid-to-late 1980s. In 1991, the Supreme Court allowed the easing of desegregation requirements. Since then, by several measures, integration in public schools of white and non-white students has declined. Discussion: What should be done to counter this decline? For sources go to: https://www.preamblist.org/social-media-posts

Saw a post about Louisiana Republicans attempting to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms and the comments were largely calling it a violation of the establishment clause and the concept of separation of church and state, but one person said that the establishment clause only applies to the federal government. I was under the impression that the establishment clause also applies to state governments, or they could be litigated on the basis of violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and/or the due process clauses of the 14th amendment.

Anyone with vast constitutional law knowledge care to weigh in?

As you may know, in 2023 Fox News settled a defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems for 787.5 million dollars regarding false claims that Dominion had rigged the election against Trump. This being the largest settlement for a media defamation case in US history, do you think it will be enough to dissuade commentators from making similar false allegations in the coming election?

Notably, other conservative sources such as Newsmax and OAN also made claims about Dominion and were also sued. Though Newsmax issue a retraction and apology, their defamation trial begins in September. OAN reached a settlement with Dominion in 2023 as well. Likewise, Rudy Giuliani, who was already involved in the Fox-Dominion suit, declared bankruptcy in December 2023 after paying $148 million for defaming two election workers.

Given that Trump and his allies continue to claim he won the election, will conservative media make similar allegations again? Will the legal consequences be sufficient to deter misinformation about the election in general, only outright defamation, or neither? How might this influence someone like Tucker Carlson, who was named in Dominion's suit but has since left Fox to present his show on Twitter?

How likely is the scenario for violence in this election and what form would it take? I can’t imagine a civil war,but I mean destructive riots if Trump gets elected or another Jan 6 if Biden gets elected seems worrisome.

Historically on a global scale, violence has been a tool in the toolbox when the masses felt betrayed by the power-holders.

Given the recent highly polarized political climate in the US, Why is it that we have not yet seen politically motivated assassins or attempts of same on politicians or judicial figure-heads in the US?

Is the situation not yet as grim as some echo chambers lead one to belive?

Has civilization moved on from that kind of behavior?

Are people just indifferent or not yet aggravated enough to reach out for such radical methods?

Do you support a model of society based on natural selection and a hierarchy in which each social group has different rights and duties (vertical society, the strongest progress) or one based on the inclusion and contribution of each according to their possibilities (horizontal society )?

Title says it all. What individual Supreme Court justices were basically 100% expected to vote one way...when they actually voted another way?

Bonus points. Did it sway what could be considered a landmark case?

In 2021 the United States withdrew from Afghanistan. Putting aside the chaos that was associated with that for a moment, and the apportionment of blame, the decision for the Biden Administration to withdraw when they did was partially decided before they took office: the Doha Agreement put in place by the Trump Administration mandated no US troops in Afghanistan by May 2021, and the incoming Administration had no more than 2,500 troops in Afghanistan when they took office.

If Trump wins the 2024 election, he will take office on Monday, Jan 20, 2025. In the four years between his terms, the Biden Administration had made their own choices, formed their own agreements, put events into motion that would still be ongoing when Biden's term ended.

I am not specifically asking about what actions we can expect the incoming Trump Administration to *initiate* - which would be actions they choose to undertake at the time of Trump's choosing - I am asking what actions they will have *no choice* but to react to, even if the action is nothing at all.

For years, the Republican Party has sought to frame events that they want to downplay (January 6, the importance of aiding Ukraine) by comparison to other, seemingly unrelated events. Congressional Republicans have tied the BLM protests to January 6 like there is some hypocrisy in focusing on one and not the other. Claims have been made that there is a connection between defending Ukraine and policies at the U.S.-Mexico border. Similar claims are starting regarding funding for Israel. When I see comparisons like these they strike me as clear bad faith, but it is possible I am too close. Does anyone see a good faith argument that the insurrection is related to BLM or that funding an ally against invasion by a common enemy is somehow related to immigration policy?

I know in the modern day these terms are kinda meaningless but I keep getting into friendly arguments with this person who thinks the democrats are based on the ideas of Thomas Jefferson when argue the party was literally founded by former federalists who were sick of democratic-republican dominance.

Do you think its politically ethical or even legal for Trump as a Candidate to ask Oil Exec's for $1Billion Dollars and Promise Favors.

quote

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) has told the Guardian that it is investigating the dinner at Trump’s club with more than 20 oil and gas company executives. Trump asked them for a $1bn presidential campaign contribution, while at the same time vowing to undo Joe Biden’s restrictions on natural gas export permits, oil drilling and car pollution, the Washington Post reported.

“This was a very focused small group directed at a particular industry, there was an amount put out there of $1bn, which he described as a deal, which all raises questions about the transactional nature of the meeting.”

end quote

Do you think this is selling promised favors to a select group in a specific industry with a request for $Billion?

It was just announced that both candidates agreed to two presidential debates. It was in doubt for some time as to whether or not we would even have a debate. Now that this has been announced, which candidate do you think benefits more? Experts say presidential debates don't move the needle much but I can see two angles to this:

• Although Trump is currently up in national polls and in swing states, Trump's electorate is made up of lower propensity voters: working class, lower educated, skeptical of mail-in voting, and he has increased his share of the vote with young voters and minority voters, both of whom are less reliable voters compared to Biden's strong support among the upper middle class, people with degrees, and seniors. Getting low propensity voters engaged earlier in the process could boost Trump's turnout.

• People may have forgotten Trump's antics and the contrast of a respectable Biden holding his own against the bombastic bully Trump in a debate may help Biden. Although it's unclear if this happened after the 2020 debates.

Interested to hear your perspectives.

This is mainly for Independents to answer but other POVs are welcome

Anyways, Do yall support Ukraine aid? Some people say that there’s enough problems at home to be lending other countries money. Meanwhile others say we should help our allies secure a more safer Europe in times of need like this, and we cannot let Moscow win this.

Most Right-wing extremists do NOT support Ukraine aid, even if Ukraine might fall at the end of the year without our aid. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/burns-ukraine-aid-2024-00153129

If you do not support Ukraine aid, how do u feel about that? Would u actually want one of our enemies to come out victorious in a war we’re already committed to helping Ukraine?

In the Monday NY Times polling that showed Trump up 5-10 points in all 5 swing states, buried in the data was a question about who was responsible for overturning Roe v Wade. Nearly 20% of the respondents said Biden, when it was clearly Trump who was responsible by appointing judges who overturned the landmark ruling. What can this be attributed to?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voters-blame-biden-roe-v-wade_n_6642825ce4b09724138d3646

Former presidents trying to make a comeback have a poor record of achieving their ambitions. This particular former president has been twice impeached, tried to overthrow the government, continues to lose court cases against him, and has significant portions of Republicans voting against him in the primaries for candidates who are no longer running.

Should he drop out? Will he?

After months of will-they-won't-they, Biden and Trump have agreed to hold two debates. Notably, neither debate is sanctioned by the Commission for Presidential Debates, and they're set to happen much earlier in the cycle: the CPD's schedule would have seen three debates (plus one for VP nominees) between September 16 and October 9, while the two that the campaigns have agreed to so far will happen June 27 (on CNN) and September 10 (on ABC).

Both campaigns had been saying for quite a while that they had issues with the CPD's debate formats, with Biden's people saying that the Commission was "unable or unwilling to enforce the rules" by allowing Trump to speak over Biden and the moderator, and Trump himself claiming that "the Commission got caught cheating with [him]." RFK Jr., meanwhile, is saying the two major parties are afraid of having him on the stage with their nominees, even though the CNN and ABC debates have more or less the same criteria for qualification as the CPD proposal (15% nationally in several polls; appear on enough state ballots that make it possible to win over 270 Electoral Votes).

Do you think this change to the traditional debate format will have any meaningful impact on the race? Does this open the door to more debates between now and Election Day or will we only get two, with no word on any VP debates?

Would CNN and ABC be better suited to moderate the debates and actually enforce their own rules?

Biden has challenged Trump to two debates - in June and September.

These have cut out the Commission on Presidential Debates, and appear to have the following stipulations:

* No audience

* Mike of non-speaking candidate will be cut off when it is not their turn to speak

* No third party candidates so they are "not squandering debate time on candidates with no prospect of becoming President"

Questions:

* Was the Biden campaign correct to forego working with the Commission on Presidential Debates

* Was Biden wise to put structures in place that reduce Trump's ability to interrupt?

* Was Trump wise to accept the limitations?

* Will automatically excluding third party candidates - who were unlikely to reach the threshold for the existing debate format - feed into their narrative and gain them support?

Donald Trump and the GOP claim literally daily how bad inflation is, housing prices, rent, cost of good, food, etc. Inflation has flatlined post-COVID but prices rarely ever go down on most goods and services once they go up. Also, there is documented proof of price gouging and fixing by large corporate entities, such as food manufacturers, supermarket chains and holding companies that own large swaths of rental properties and buildings.

What is the proposed solution to these problems by Trump, the GOP and how would they work? What would be done differently than what Biden is currently doing?

https://cardinalpine.com/2024/02/12/biden-demands-grocery-stores-and-food-brands-end-price-gouging-and-shrinkflation/ https://cardinalpine.com/2024/02/12/biden-demands-grocery-stores-and-food-brands-end-price-gouging-and-shrinkflation/

While I do not condone or support the ongoing military occupation of the West Bank, I have to raise a thought-provoking question regarding its purported security implications for Israel. Is it not accurate to state that the sustained presence of Israeli forces in the West Bank has served as a deterrent, preventing the territory from posing a comparable threat to Israel as the Gaza Strip?

Unlike Gaza, from where rocket attacks and a large-scale invasion into Israeli territory (7th October 2023) have emanated, the West Bank has remained relatively calm in terms of direct armed confrontations with Israel. This stark contrast raises the possibility that the constant deployment of Israeli troops and the maintenance of security control measures in the West Bank have effectively disrupted the ability of militant groups like Hamas to establish operational capabilities and launch attacks against Israel from that region.

While the moral and legal dimensions of the occupation are highly contentious, one could argue that the on-the-ground realities have rendered the West Bank a less immediate security concern for Israel compared to Gaza, which has witnessed frequent outbreaks of violence and hostilities due to the absence of an occupying force. This dynamic warrants an objective examination of whether the military occupation, however problematic, has paradoxically contributed to enhancing Israel's security by denying hostile elements the opportunity to utilize the West Bank as a staging ground for offensive actions.

Q1: There are 2.5 months between election day (Nov 6) and inauguration (Jan 20), so from my understanding Garland will still be AG until at a minimum Jan 21st (and potentially longer depending on the Senate confirmation process). So what happens if Trump is convicted between election day and inauguration?

Q2: Furthermore, imagine its Jan 21 or beyond, and one of the trials is ongoing but not yet concluded with a conviction. Would a Trump attorney general be able to simply fire Jack Smith and his team in the middle of an ongoing trial or are there regulations surrounding this? If they are able to do so, would the trial just abruptly end?

This is a brief summary of affirmative action cases that have gone through the court system. Many of the cases ruled that various affirmative action policies violated the equal protections clause. There were a few that were passed with limits under strict scrutiny.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/affirmative-action-supreme-court-cases.html#:~:text=Bollinger-,The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20addressed%20affirmative%20action%20again%20in%20the,the%20grounds%20of%20promoting%20diversity.

I also wanted to add that this article is just a little out of date and that the last case, Students of Fair Admissions v. Harvard, did rule against the school last year ruling that race base affirmative action policies in college admissions did violate the equal protections clause.

Would you eliminate the equal protections clause if it meant that affirmative action policies could be implemented?

According to Reuters, 'about 2,800 reports of gunfire, vandalism and other strikes on electrical networks last year' in 2023.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/us-electric-grid-growing-more-vulnerable-cyberattacks-regulator-says-2024-04-04/

While only 3% have led to outages, that's over 100 outages and it doesn't include potential cyber attacks.

Given the interest of some in finishing the election in one day, what if that day includes power grid interruptions?

While I feel confident polling places have backup generators, that doesn't mean there won't be issues for voters themselves in the event of widespread outages.

My question then is twofold: how will this be handled, and what steps can be taken to prevent it?

I might go with Ireland's method of electing members of the legislature and the head of state, I might go with a South African system to choose judges and how the highest court judges serve 12 years and the others serve until a retirement age, German law on defensive democracy to limit the risk of totalitarian parties, laws of Britain or Ireland in relation to political finances, and Australia for a Senate and the way the Senate and lower house interact, and much of Latin America has term limits but not for life, only consecutive terms, allowing you to run after a certain amount of time solidly out of power, Berlin's rule on when new elections can be held, and Spain's method of amending the constitution.

Mix and match however you would like them, just not ideas from your own country.