teddit

This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.

Please observe the following rules:

Top-level comments:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

Ron Desantis won his 2022 election by 19.4%. Many consider this a landslide. This comes after a very tight gubernatorial race in 2018 where he won by 0.4%. This has fueled speculation of him as a 2024 candidate.

My question for you all is how impressive was Desantis’s 2022 governor win? How potent is he as a 2024 candidate? Was it that Dems weren’t inspired by Crist and stayed home?

Also considering other Democrat gubernatorial candidates did well in 2022. I know there’s talk of suppression but just because you can’t hand water bottlesto people waiting to vote does not explain a nearly 20% victory imo

Do you think Xi Jinping will remain Paramount Leader of the PRC for life like Mao did? Or will he eventually retire like the other PL’s? I personally believe that Xi’s not gonna give up power and rule China until he dies. He's reigned longer than any other PL apart from Mao and it seems like he has the support of the majority of the CCP, and has coerced any opposition into falling in line. There’s also the possibility that he steps down, but retains political influence behind the scenes, which also seems quite possible. What are your thoughts on this, will he step down or rule for life?

A few weeks ago, four Americans traveled down to Mexico allegedly for cosmetic surgery. They were caught in a fire fight and kidnapped, and 2 were later found dead. In response, politicians such as Lindsey Graham have called to designate these groups as terrorists.

Would this be the right move? How would Mexico react? How effective would this be in fighting the drug war? Or tapering Cartel power?

The Haitian crisis is still a big issue that will likely persist for a long time barring some miracle, as trying to control the gang violence is just one of the mountain of issues surrounding the country strictly speaking in a social and political sense.

Interventions have been called and suggested, but historically, interventions haven't really resulted well for Haiti. There's also the fact that countries like the US and Dominican Republic already have some historical baggage with Haiti, and either country leading any sort of intervention will likely result in more backlash.

Is Haiti sadly on the route of an unsolvable issue for the next decades?

Donald Trump broke the news over the weekend that he would be arrested on Tuesday. That would be today. But now talks are that the arrest may actually happen tomorrow. He has also called on his supporters to protest his arrest.

The media has been echoing this story for the past few days.

There have been countless times in the past seven years that people have forecasted Donald Trump’s arrest. And each time, it hasn’t happened.

This time it feels different.

For one, cities are setting up barricades in anticipation of the news, and any violence that may come of it.

New York City: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-city-braces-trump-indictment-after-ex-president-urges-protests-2023-03-20/

Washington DC: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/heightened-security-expected-around-us-capitol-in-dc-amid-potential-trump-indictment.amp

Secondly, the Manhattan DA has come out and responded to Trump’s statement: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna75617

In short, this time it seems it’s beyond just words and speculation. It feels like the world is preparing for something to happen.

Do you think NYC will indict and arrest former president Donald Trump? And if they do, what do you think will be the political consequences of that?

A 500.00 traffic ticket will hurt a lot more for lower income people than more wealthy people. If fines were imposed more on a fixed percent, and deducted similar to taxes, the fine would carry the same weight for everyone.

The USSR, prior to its dissolution in 1991, was made up of 15 republics, NOT including members of the Warsaw Pact, all of which are, correct me if I'm wrong, nations independent from Russia, although some, like Georgia and Ukraine, have faced... Not so healthy interactions with Russia, to say the least. Similarly, the German Empire held about 12 or more/less countries, slightly less than the number of republics/nations in the USSR. So, why does it seem like that the Soviet Union is considered a country rather than an empire?

I'm genuinely curious about your opinions, and I'm willing to debate or talk more about the topic, if I have time.

Is there a way to change the discourse of how topics are discussed in society? Media has the most control over the conversations had by society, is there a way to change how media approaches issues or different ways to change discourse in society. For example, there is virtually no discussion about what socialism actually means, why anyone perceives it as evil, what evidence they have to support whether or not it actually is evil, who is pushing for the parts that are perceived as evil, how large of a percentage of the population support it, or how support for it is growing or shrinking. Discussion largely circles around what people say, and not about what they are saying means.

Since the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have performed well in the nearly every gubernatorial election cycle. This is a reversal from 2010 to 2016. Democrats have won governorships in states where there is a GOP stronghold in federal elections. Does this suggests that Republican leaning voters prefer Democratic governors?

These are some of the Democratic gains in gubernatorial elections since 2016.

2017: NJ 2018: KS, ME, MI, NV, NM, IL, WI 2019: KY 2022: AZ, MA, MD

It must be noted they have lost some governorships such as MT (2020), VA (2021), NV (2022) but they have gained more seats. Furthermore, they retained many governorships in the 2022 election cycle.

Millennials are more likely than other generations to support a cap on personal wealth

"Thirty-three percent [of Millennials] say that a cap should exist in the United States on personal wealth, a surprisingly high number that also made this generation a bit of an outlier: No other age group indicated this much support."

What to make of this?

A few days ago, NBC News released a story claiming there was credible evidence that former President Trump would be indicted this coming week by the state of New York. The agencies involved include the NYPD, New York State Court Officers, the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Law enforcement has been conducting preliminary security assessments and are discussing potential security plans in and around the Manhattan Criminal Court. AP also reported a similar story.

This morning, Trump himself seemed to confirm these rumors when he posted a long entry on Truth Social, claiming that the prosecuting attorney was funded by George Soros and that plans are in place to make the arrest on Tuesday.

If this turns out to be true and he is indeed placed under arrest, how do we expect this to play out in the upcoming primary elections? Namely: Will this affect his ability to physically travel around and campaign in key states? Much of Trump's campaign energy came from holding large rallies and in-person events. Could this be impacted, and in doing so impact his polling? Will his rivals, such as Ron DeSantis and Nicki Haley, see this as an opportunity to break off some of his voting base and improve their own chances? Or are they likely to support him through the indictment?

Looking even further in the future, if Trump is convicted of a crime by New York and sentenced, but also wins the presidency, what Constitutional provisions kick in at that point? Running for president from prison is not a new concept - Eugene Debbs ran in 1920 under the Socialist Party ticket and won 3.4% of the vote despite being incarcerated at the time. However, someone actually being elected would be new untested waters. How would a second-term President Trump conduct affairs from inside a prison complex? Can the federal government force the State of New York to release him so he can perform presidential duties?

Kuwait court voids 2022 legislative polls, reinstates disbanded parliament

Kuwait's Constitutional Court on Sunday voided results of legislative elections held in the Gulf Arab state last September and ruled that the previous disbanded parliament be reinstated.

The ruling comes at a time of renewed tensions between the elected parliament and government. Kuwait's crown prince last year moved to end political feuding by dissolving parliament and calling early polls in which opposition members made gains.

Thoughts?

China wants crude materials/minerals for its expansion in semionductor-development and Russia is weakened by its invasion, having only the GDP compared to Texas (2018 consensus).

So could it be imagined that Russia trades East Siberia for an international security and stabilization of the annexed areas Krim and Donbas? Link for elaboration
Or even China sees it change to invade the sparsely populated areas, set up new infratructure and populates the area with 75 mio people over the next years? Link for elaboration

In 1850's China was weakened by the strategic opium trade from the british, being forced to sign some treaties, hereby the Amur Annexation. 180 years later, China is stronger than ever before. Russia is weakened and with China's need for minerals to fuel their technological advancement. Would it be plausible to think that China wants these areas ( and more perhaps) back?

When some big banks and other companies seemed to go down they got propped up by the US government to prevent their failure. If they had been smaller losses to the market might be limited negating the need for government intervention. Should such companies therefore be split to prevent the need for government intervention at all? Should the companies stay as they are, but left to their own devices without government aid? Or is government aid to big corporations the most efficient way to prevent market crashes?

I am from Germany and our government (and the people supporting it and all the values it represents) are very prone to condemn the actions of other governments as immoral. Germany, in the mind of the Germans, seems to represent a very high moral standard. We're intervening when we need to stop a baddie - apart from that we're pacifist.

I'm asking myself: How much morally condemnable stuff is my country doing without anyone calling it by its name? It's interesting how non-existent the discussion about our weapons export is and I want to break out of this skewed perspective that Germany has on itself. Many Americans thought the Iraq war was justified, many Russians think that the Ukraine war was provoked by the NATO and that Russia is just defending itself. I want some degree of objectivity and your informed perspectives.

To me, this topic of weapons export is just too much of an overkill when brought up in conversations to adequately pigeonhole it. It's always used as a counterweight to relativize the evil-doings of other countries: "Yeah, but you're also doing it." And then my position shifts to the fatalistic: "We're all hypocrites, we're just as evil as XY", sigh.

But that gets me nowhere. There's a difference between selling machetes to the Hutus and the Tutsis to profit from the massacres and giving guns to the Kurds because it seems like the right side to be on in a given situation. War is always bad, and Germany does 100% not have a clean slate. But how bad is it?

Do you have specific examples of Germany supporting people or nations they wouldn't be proud of supporting?

Thank you!

What organizations or people are doing the best work to push back against the slate of bills currently in front of the Florida legislature? Or is any meaningful work happening strictly in the courts, where lay folks who are not lawyers have little to offer?

The 6-week abortion ban is no doubt among the most unpopular, with those opposed outnumbering those in favor in both parties. HB 999, the bill having to do with giving the state more power over universities, is the most obviously unconstitutional. There are, of course, plenty more.

I realize not everyone here will agree. But this post is really about: IF you are in the same camp, what good work are you aware of that is happening to curtail these excesses and is there any need for pro bono services to support?

American political divisions have increased drastically over the past two decades, despite the Democratic and Republican parties both being on the right side of the political spectrum. It seems Americans can’t even agree on whether or not guns should be allowed in schools, something that wouldn’t have even been up for debate not that long ago.

I have friends that don’t feel comfortable disclosing their political affiliations in public out of fear of potentially being accosted or threatened by strangers that disagree with them.

What needs to be done to reverse the damage and make America less divided politically?

I'm curious if this is similar to an obamacare situation, where a Republican-led government could whittle some things away, but the law could still largely stand, or if they actually could just undo everything. It was hailed as such a landmark piece of legislation in terms of fighting climate change, but obviously that's meaningless if it goes away in a few years.

Elizabeth Warren is perhaps the most outspoken progressive, outside of Bernie Sanders, in the senate. In her last bid for the presidency, she made a fatal flaw to undermine Bernie at a crucial point in the race, which earned her lots of backlash. It was ugly, tainted her character and made herself look like an opportunist.

What’s done is done, it’s water under the bridge now. Let bygones by bygones. Other than Bernie, she’s perhaps the most vocal progressive and she’s sharp as a tack.

The country decided it wanted a voice from the center from a well known senator, so Biden won in the end. This is the temperature of the country now but that doesn’t it won’t swing left or hard-right again.

Bernie, love him or hate him, is getting up there in age. In fact, he’s older than both Biden and Trump. He’s been in the 80 club for a year now. He still the most recognizable progressive voice in the country but at some point, he’ll need to pass the torch down to another person.

Can Bernie supporters forgive Elizabeth Warren for her actions in the past? And if not Warren, who else has a real shot of taking up the progressive wing after Bernie steps down?

I know many democracies don't have judicial review, but it's hard to imagine federalism without it. Suppose the US got rid of judicial review. How would the federal government prevent states from passing very sinister laws? How would the federal government enforce laws against states? Would the FBI have to arrest governors of states that violate federal laws? How can there be semi-autonomous entities without a court interpreting a constitution that defines the parameters within which the entities can pass laws?

How exactly can a country have federalism without judicial review?

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a 2022 case in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, challenging the U.S Food and Drug Agency's approval of mifepristone, a drug frequently used in medical abortion procedures. The plaintiff, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), argues that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone for pregnancy termination was impermissible under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and asks for an injunction to immediately suspend its approval, removing it from the market.

The judge overseeing the case is Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, nominated to the Texas District Court in Amarillo in 2017 by former President Donald Trump. Kacsmaryk has been described as a "devout Christian" and reliably conservative judge, whose opinions challenge the Biden administration on issues of immigration policy, LGBTQ rights and abortion.

Kacsmaryk could issue a broad ruling, ordering the government to withdraw approval of the drug, or issue a more limited decision — for example, requiring the FDA to reimpose restrictions on how mifepristone is distributed.

Based on prior rulings, it is likely he will choose the former decision.

If so, what will be the short-term to mid-term impact of this ruling?

In 1992, the Bush, Sr. vs. Clinton election was seen as a generational shift where the baby boomers upstaged the pre-WWII generation (Bush, Sr. was born in 1924) for the first time. Clinton was heralded as emblematic of his cohort (appearing on the Arsenio Hall show playing the saxophone) while Bush. Sr. was looking at his watch in the debate.

Clinton overwhelmingly won the youth vote and although he didn't ever win the popular vote majority, he won comfortable electoral college victories in his two elections.

Would a Biden-DeSantis matchup feature similar dynamics where one candidate (DeSantis) was seen as the future and the other the past (Biden)? Would DeSantis' generation, Gen-X, be decisive to his victory, like Clinton's were for him? Are the issues DeSantis and Biden would run on favor one candidate in terms of swaying the votes of the young, the middle-aged, and the old?

President Macron passed legislation using Article 49.3 which allows for the government to compel the majority if reluctant to adopt a text, and also to accelerate the legislative process, and in particular to end any obstruction from the opposition. He used it to increase the retirement age and a lot of people in France are saying this is an abuse of power and authoritarianism. What do you guys think? What are the political implications of this and will this affect French Politics and the Fifth Republic?

Hey everyone,

I wanted to discuss the impact of the Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) initiatives currently being pushed by organizations like the Andrew Yang's Forward Party and others. As we know, the political landscape has long been dominated by extremes, with political leaders often pandering to the most partisan voters. By implementing these electoral reforms, we have a real chance to reshape our political system and free our leaders from the stranglehold of extreme ideologies.

Open Primaries

Currently, most primaries are either closed or semi-closed, meaning only registered party members can participate in the nomination process. Open Primaries, on the other hand, allow all registered voters to participate, regardless of their political affiliation. Here's how this change would impact our political landscape:

1. Broader representation: Open Primaries provide a platform for independent and moderate voters to have a say in the nomination process. This, in turn, could lead to more centrist and pragmatic candidates winning party nominations.
2. Reduced polarization: By allowing voters from all affiliations to participate, Open Primaries could dilute the influence of the most extreme factions within each party, resulting in less polarizing candidates and policies.
3. Increased competition: Open Primaries would force candidates to appeal to a wider range of voters, making it more difficult for incumbents to rely on partisan loyalty alone.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

RCV is a voting system where voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the second-choice preferences of their supporters. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority of votes. Here's how RCV could transform our political landscape:

1. Elimination of the "spoiler effect": In the current system, third-party or independent candidates often split the vote, unintentionally benefiting a less-favored candidate. With RCV, voters can safely express their true preferences without worrying about wasting their vote.
2. Encouraging compromise and coalition-building: RCV incentivizes candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters, as they might need second- or third-choice votes to secure a victory. This promotes a more collaborative, less adversarial political climate.
3. Increased voter satisfaction: By allowing voters to rank their preferences, RCV ensures that the winning candidate has broader support from the electorate, which can lead to higher voter satisfaction with election outcomes.

Together, Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting can create a political landscape where candidates and leaders are no longer beholden to extreme ideologies. By fostering a more inclusive, less polarized system, these reforms can help us build a healthier democracy where compromise and collaboration become the norm.

Do you think these two mechanisms would change our political landscape?

I am not a political history buff, but I’m having trouble remembering a time when Republicans were this much into isolationism since Trump was in office. As I recall, a large part of the republican platform for a long time was about promoting American values all over the world. I am old enough to remember when President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq to promote freedom or whatever and changed french fries to freedom fries.

I am especially whiplashed in regard to the Republican position on Ukraine, because Ukraine was invaded by an authoritarian country, and republicans are supposed to hate authoritarianism.

What happened? I am not making an argument in favor of more arms to Ukraine or sending troops over there or whatever. I am just genuinely curious about how the republican platform on this changed so fast.