The situations in Haiti and Sudan has been very conflicting to me lately, specifically on what should be done regarding them

In Haiti, we are seeing mass violence of all forms being committed by gangs, while in Sudan we are seeing an active (and underreported) genocide taking place. Both of these situations involve mass violence of all forms, yet (specifically for Haiti), a foreign power (El Salvador) intervening is being heavily criticized

El Salvador definitely doesnt have the best tactics and very likely not the best interests in its leader heart, all on top of human rights violations at home. Yet theyre the only one doing something as the rest of the world seems to ignore this situation. I feel if they werent there, the situation would devolve into Sudan where no foreign power has done anything and it clearly has only made things worse.

Going back to Haiti and El Salvador, while their intervention does not absolve them of criticism, nor should it, it makes me wonder what realistically can be done regarding Haiti and Sudan that would genuinely improve the situation

TL;DR What realistic actions could foreign powers commit to improve the lives of innocents in these two nations?

This question is ignoring any public backlash against the foreign government. Its simply on what actions would eventually resolve these situations realistically and as ethically as possible

I'm genuinely curious how conservatives see this, and I'm not trying to start a fight.

The main objection I hear to healthcare for all is wait times, which is fair. But what if it didn't have to be one or the other? Picture a basic public plan that covers everyone, while private insurance and private hospitals still exist for people who'd rather pay to be seen right away. If you want the premium option, you can buy it or pay out of pocket.

My thinking is about the middle class. A lot of families already pay premiums, then deductibles, then coinsurance on top of that. What if that money went into one big pool instead, so care is free at the point of use for everyone, and anyone who wants more can still pay for it?

What would make an idea like this work or fail for you? Is it the cost, the role of government, the quality of care, something else?

For example, Trump ran on tariffs, increasing oil production, strengthen the border. I heard him say many times that he wanted to do mass deportations, but others may have thought that he was just going after criminals, which also was the subject of some of his speeches. I thought it was quite clear when he repeated the 'they are eating your dogs' line during the debate. He also criticized birthright citizenship.

He famously ran against wars (never mentioned going to Iran as far as I know), and to 'ending' the Ukraine war. Trump ended his first term mostly supporting the Ukraine - although it was off and on as I recall.

Trump also ran on reducing government spending and the federal workforce.

In economics, he ran on cutting taxes, reducing regulations. He continually criticized Biden's inflation rate.

CNN reported an exit poll that 40% of the voters thought the economy was important, followed by corruption33% and then immigration (14%).

Latino Voters went from 55-43% to 64-34%. However, the NY Times puts them at only 10% of the vote.

Did people change their minds about the reasons they voted for Trump's policies, or did he not execute them well?

In a recent Dutch talkshow, available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR7mIWFRVC4 somewhere near the end), two people end up in a discussion about whether current ministers of Economics, health, etc., would want new elections, just because they might not get their jobs back after the election. A whole eruption about whether you have to do it, seemingly for your country, and secretly to not lose your company car and desk.

Some context: The Dutch politics has had 3 cabinets and 3 elections in the last 5 years. Upcoming March we have Provincial council elections, and water board elections (to do with rivers, dikes, sewers, etc.). They might have to add an election for the Second Chamber, aka the ministers and the prime minister, since it is also a difficulty for parties to have a majority in both chambers. The First Chamber is like the US Senate, the Second Chamber is the US House of Representatives.

No one can easily form a majority, there are many parties, and with the elections for Provincial Council coming up, who in turn elect the First Chamber, we don't know who will hold a majority in either or both.

The left has managed to get the tax plan through, which has been failing for the last year whenever anyone else had plans. They even said that this minority cabinet should look outside of it, calling it an open marriage. And now that the two center parties went over left, the right wing party screamed it's head off. It seems to hold for now, and everyone thinks that by Monday, we will have lost another cabinet.

How is this where you live? Do other countries solve their mess/glue stuff for a while, so they can keep their jobs for a bit longer, or do they care less about having a job and a company car, working for the ministry, at the very top?

Hi everyone!

During many decades, US and China had cooperative relations on economic and trade levels. Recently since 2017, their relationship transformed into intense and durable rivalry. It cannot be characterized by one certain incident or specific leader, but rather it is a significant change in the interaction of the two countries within the international community.

There are different perspectives about the nature of rivalry. According to some of them, the cause of it is the conflict between two nations in terms of power and security. With the increase in financial and military capabilities of China, the role of the US as the hegemon becomes under threat. As a result, both parties become defensive and seek influence in Indo-Pacific regions.

Others claim that the problem lies in the sphere of economics and future technologies competition. The basis of such perspective includes trade imbalances, supply chain dependencies, and intense competitive relations over new technologies like microchips and artificial intelligence. There is distrust between them since the two nations have different political regimes and ideologies, which makes it easy to misunderstand intentions of each other.

Considering all of these factors, which do you think are the leading ones of the US-Chinese rivalry? Is it the fight of two powers for dominance, or it is an economic battle? What role does the difference in political regime play in the emergence of distrust?

As many who know history are aware. The South was heavily democratic for over 100 years. These were the ancestral Dixiecrats who were mostly white and socially conservative and at one point supported segregation. After the civil rights act of 1965 and Richard Nixons victory things started to change. By the late 1980s early 1990s most of those white southerners had flipped over to the Republican Party who won governorships federal offices and state legislatures for the first time since reconstruction.

We began to see cracks in the south for the republicans in 2008 when Barack Obama became the first democratic candidate to win in Virginia since 1964 and Virginia has since become a solidly Democratic state. In the late 2010s Doug Jones won a senate seat in Alabama followed by Beto O Rourke coming within 2 points of unseating senator Ted Cruz in Texas. In 2020, Democrats gained control of both senate seats in Georgia for the first time since the 1990s and Joe Biden became the first Democrat to win the state since bill clinton in 1996. Georgia has only started to become more blue since then as both of these senators have been since re elected and democrats won every statewide race in Georgia plus the state house of reps. This also happened in Texas where they elected a Democrat to the senate for the first time since 1988 and a Democrat as governor for the first time since 1990 along with the state house of reps and every statewide office. Democrats also picked up a senate seat in South Carolina for the first time since 1998 and in Mississippi for the first time since 1982.

This doesn’t mean republicans can’t win in these places anymore it seems they aren’t as solidly republican as they were in the 90s and early 2000s. Have we finally started to see the southern strategy begin to fail?

In 2020, climate change was a centerpiece of Democratic campaign platforms and online political discourse. Candidates participated in dedicated climate town halls, debated sweeping federal frameworks like the Green New Deal, and framed decarbonization as an urgent, standalone moral priority. Online, discussions regularly focused on global emissions targets, extreme weather records, and mass youth-led protests.

In the 2026 cycle, both candidate messaging and broader political discourse look noticeably different. Campaign platforms have centered primarily on healthcare access, cost-of-living pressures, and government corruption. When energy and environmental issues gain traction, on the campaign trail or in online spaces, they are mostly framed around immediate, localized impacts like AI data centers, municipal water strain, and rising utility bills rather than abstract emissions goals.

Why has online political discourse moved so heavily toward data centers and local infrastructure rather than broader emissions and climate targets compared to 2020?

All the discussions around the filibuster seem to be either kill it or defend it. Theres very little nuance or creativity. Where are the calls to adjust it to keep it useful but reduce its choke hold on legislature? Is this a general inability to keep nuance in any general political discussion? Or is there something specific about parliamentary rules that flatten the discussion based on how these rules work?

Should the next Congress get rid of the filibuster? For a bit of context, in the 1970s the senate switched to a form of the filibuster that allowed a single senator to simply signal intent to filibuster, and that would block a bill.

Effectively that gives every senator the ability to veto a bill, and it takes 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. The last time either party had 60 seats was for about six months in 2009, and before that it was 1977.

Before the 1970s, the filibuster required a senator to actually hold the floor and speak for a painfully long time.

During many decades, US and China had cooperative relations on economic and trade levels. Recently since 2017, their relationship transformed into intense and durable rivalry. It cannot be characterized by one certain incident or specific leader, but rather it is a significant change in the interaction of the two countries within the international community.

There are different perspectives about the nature of rivalry. According to some of them, the cause of it is the conflict between two nations in terms of power and security. With the increase in financial and military capabilities of China, the role of the US as the hegemon becomes under threat. As a result, both parties become defensive and seek influence in Indo-Pacific regions.

Others claim that the problem lies in the sphere of economics and future technologies competition. The basis of such perspective includes trade imbalances, supply chain dependencies, and intense competitive relations over new technologies like microchips and artificial intelligence. There is distrust between them since the two nations have different political regimes and ideologies, which makes it easy to misunderstand intentions of each other.

Considering all of these factors, which do you think are the leading ones of the US-Chinese rivalry? Is it the fight of two powers for dominance, or it is an economic battle? What role does the difference in political regime play in the emergence of distrust?

References:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401414475_The_US-China_trade_war_Economics_rivalry_and_global_implications

The recent failed impeachment effort against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has brought renewed attention to congressional voting rules and whether members should be required to physically attend every vote.

On November 10, the House voted 211–204 to refer articles of impeachment introduced by Republican Thomas Massie to the Judiciary Committee, effectively preventing the impeachment effort from advancing. Eleven Democrats and seven Republicans were absent. Had all 11 Democrats voted against referral, with every other vote remaining unchanged, the motion would have failed 211–215. Likewise, if all seven absent Republicans were present alongside the absent Democrats, the vote would have been 218–215, assuming all absent members voted along party lines, meaning the motion would still have passed and the impeachment effort would have remained blocked.

However, subsequent reporting has complicated the circumstances surrounding those absences. Several Democrats reported being delayed by traffic and police motorcades while attempting to reach the Capitol. Others were attending events, dealing with medical circumstances, or facing personal emergencies.

At least seven of the absent Democrats have since publicly indicated that they would have opposed referring the impeachment resolution to committee, with some formally entering their intended votes into the Congressional Record. Those statements, however, cannot retroactively change the official vote count.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the House temporarily permitted proxy voting, allowing absent representatives to designate another member to cast votes on their behalf under specific rules. This system operated from 2020 through 2022 before being discontinued when Republicans took control of the House in January 2023. The Senate never adopted an equivalent system for floor votes.

Currently, members of both chambers generally must be physically present to cast their votes, regardless of whether their absence is caused by illness, transportation problems, family emergencies, or other circumstances.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides. Remote voting could ensure that constituents remain represented even when their elected officials cannot physically reach Washington. On the other hand, requiring physical attendance could encourage accountability, discourage unnecessary absences, and preserve the importance of in-person legislative deliberation.

Should Congress restore proxy voting or establish a secure remote voting system for both chambers? If yes, should any restrictions be in place?

r/hatethissmug took this down 😔✌🏿so I'm here now 🥹

More specifically when they try to ban or put restrictions on things that can't really be enforced.

A good example of this is the attempt to ban 3D printers from printing guns (printers get fed G-Code which is a list of instructions on how to move the motors so it doesn't actually know what it's printing and even then a " gun part" is so broad that even if it could see the model or you put the restrictions on the slicer (which sees individual points of a 3D model typically) they wouldn't know what to do either.

Another law was the requirement for every OS to have age verification, which also doesn't make any sense and I assume would be more so to protect against bots or for more government control, but is also impossible to enforce. Are you going to ban Hannah Montana Linux because it's not being updated anymore? Can I install Windows XP anymore? Will old integrated systems have to upgrade or be banned? What if somebody uses Rufus or something like Tiny 11 to bypass it? What happens to them? How will it be tracked? What happens if my 5-year-old uses my age verified PC? What about the operating system on my esp32 or my Raspberry Pi nano? (Some of these questions are already answered but still) As far as I heard they knew the bill needed changing before they even passed it, so why did they pass it first? Has it been changed since then?

My final example is the ban on AI super intelligence in Bloomington, Indiana (who doesn't even have any data centers within city limits). How is this enforceable? AI is just math and with enough computing power that math can do more things than a human, how will they enforce it? What if I connect remotely to my data center running the super intelligence? This also falls into the category of people hitting on ai and saying it will go away soon, because AI is just math and you can't ban math just like you can ban scientific laws, but that's another post for another day.

As an American, our government has three branches which means the people that make the laws aren't always the same people that enforce them, so sometimes things can be passed by one branch but impossible to work on in another. Do they ever talk to each other about these bills? Why don't they get a professional or at least someone in the field that actually knows what's happening? Some of my examples ask questions that are unrelated because the bill covers that (or doesn't concern it) but my complaint still stands bc I say so.

It seems like after the historic wins last week one aspect that is ignored by the press is how 4million Americans all around the globe cannot vote to determine any federal policy that affects them directly.

No U.S. territory has full, voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Instead, the five permanently inhabited U.S. territories are granted a limited form of representation through non-voting members in the House of Representatives, and they have no representation at all in the U.S. Senate

Some! 3.6 million residents of U.S. territories can vote in presidential primaries but not the general election.

And that is not including the population of Washington DC who also don’t have representation.

So what is it? Statehood? Independence? Allowing voting rights to the reps?

Let me start with a brief definition of each of these terms before getting into the details of my question.

Reactionary: They want to revert the status quo back to a previous state. They focus on tradition, hierarchy, and undoing recent progress they view as incorrect.

Conservative: They want to preserve the status quo while allowing slow gradual change. They focus on order, stability, and maintaining proven institutions.

Liberal: They want to change the status quo by working in the system. They focus on individual rights, equal opportunity, and value the rule of law.

Progressive: They want to change the status quo by changing the system. They focus on social equity, welfare, and seek to dismantling systemic barriers.

Most people in America are familiar with the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" and associate them with Republicans and Democrats respectively. Some people are more familiar with the term "Progressive" while not too many people know what "reactionary" means.

If you look at the Republican party today, it's a mix of Reactionary and Conservative going by the textbook definitions.

While if you look at the Democratic party it is a mix of Liberal at its core, Progressive at on the left-wing of the party, but I would strongly argue there is also a large mix of Conservative sentiment on the right-wing of the Democratic party too.

Most people would not associate the word "Conservative" with Democrats and dismiss any argument about it. But as we have seen there are parts of the Democratic party that want to maintain the status quo and slow down change (especially so when it comes to issues such as foreign policy or healthcare), and these people in the party usually are the ones in party leadership.

My big question is this: Does this contribute to the shifting of the Overton Window? Or is it caused by the shifting of the Overton Window? How does America course correct? Is a course correction even needed and what are the consequences?

There used to be secret ballots in congress. Would there be a benefit to having a process where some small number of senators/representatives could request a secret ballot so that some votes could be cast in secret. (For example if 5% of the body requests a secret vote.)

I understand the benefit of public ballots to holding members accountable to their constituents but there are some situations where its obvious that senators/representatives don't want to do whats right due to political considerations. Could this be a useful safety valve? Would the pros outweigh the cons of misusing this sort of mechanism? Could it balance out filibuster?

Christian voters, particularly white evangelicals, have historically been among Trump's strongest supporters. However, recent polling suggests that support has declined.

According to Pew Research Center, Trump's approval rating among white evangelical Protestants dropped from 78% in February 2025 to 58% in October 2026.

More recently, Trump said in a 60 Minutes interview that he would not forgive certain political opponents, even when asked about forgiveness as a condition for entering heaven.

How much do Trump's statements and personal behavior influence Christian voters compared with his policies? What explains the differences in support among Christian groups? And could these changing attitudes have broader political implications?

Sources:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/10/13/religious-groups-differ-widely-in-their-2026-midterm-preferences/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-trump-forgive-his-opponents-60-minutes/

I’ve noticed something interesting about the political divide over AI development in the US.

Democrats tend to receive strong support from college-educated voters and many people working in technology and other knowledge-based industries. Republicans, on the other hand, have substantial support among blue-collar workers and people in traditional industries.

Intuitively, I would expect Democrats to be more supportive of rapid AI development, while Republicans might be more concerned about automation replacing traditional jobs.

Yet some Democratic politicians and local communities are pushing back against AI data center expansion, while Republicans seem more supportive of accelerating AI infrastructure development.

I’m curious about a few things:

1. Why are some Democrats opposing AI data centers when the tech industry has traditionally had strong ties to Democratic voters?

2. Why don’t working-class Republican voters seem more concerned about AI-driven job displacement?

3. Is this divide mainly about environmental concerns, electricity costs, corporate interests, or broader political ideology?

4. Am I misunderstanding the actual political positions of the two parties on AI?

I’d be interested in hearing different perspectives, especially from people familiar with American politics and the tech industry.

U.S. House members are currently elected from single-member districts, a requirement set by a 1967 federal law that Congress could repeal or amend. Under a proportional system, such as the multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting proposed in the Fair Representation Act, several representatives would be elected from each larger district. Seats would be awarded in rough proportion to the votes each party or candidate receives.

For

• Multi-member districts are harder to gerrymander, which matters given the recent wave of mid-decade redistricting in multiple states.

• Voters in districts that lean heavily toward one party would have a realistic chance of electing someone who shares their views.

• Lower thresholds for winning could give a wider range of viewpoints representation, and could reduce the incentive for candidates to cater only to a party’s base.

Against

• Other democracies that use single-member districts are less polarized than the U.S., so the voting system may not be the main cause of polarization.

• Proportional systems tend to produce more parties, which could make coalition-building and passing legislation harder, not easier.

• Research suggests that polarized House members may often reflect their constituents’ views accurately, so electing more moderate members wouldn’t necessarily improve representation.

• The presidency and Senate would remain winner-take-all, so the stakes of national elections might change less than supporters expect.

Would switching the House to proportional representation do more to improve American democracy, through fairer maps and broader representation, or to harm it, through a more fragmented Congress and harder governing?

The Associated Press called both chambers for Democrats after the November midterms. Until the new Congress convenes in January, the incoming majority has no formal control of the committees or the floor schedule, but it has several weeks to prepare.

Household costs and public services. If a school district expects to cut meals or a state agency anticipates gaps in health coverage, lawmakers could use the transition to learn when those disruptions would begin, who would be affected and what preventing them would cost. How far can they get in drafting funding measures and building support before committee assignments and the legislative calendar are set?

Deportations and family separations. Incoming committee leaders could identify the records they would need to examine how agencies track family separations and whether people had a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal in cases such as the transfers to prison in El Salvador. Which parts of that inquiry can begin during the transition, and which require formal committee authority?

The Epstein files. The Justice Department says it withheld some material, citing legal privileges and exceptions under the disclosure law. What can incoming committee leaders do before January to prepare for a review of those decisions while protecting survivors’ identities?

The war with Iran. Incoming lawmakers could plan hearings on civilian harm and the scope of U.S. involvement. How much leverage could early negotiations give Congress over future military funding, and how should potential effects on fuel prices and household budgets figure in that decision?

Across these issues, where would early preparation make the biggest difference, and what would have to wait until January?

The controversy surrounding Nvidia and allegations of Chinese espionage raises serious questions about national security, Washington's relationship with Silicon Valley, and the Trump administration's approach to China.

https://americareport.us/spy-scandal-nvidia-affair-rocks-trumps-white/

Nvidia plays a central role in America's dominance of artificial intelligence, making its technology strategically important in the growing rivalry between Washington and Beijing.

But how should the White House balance national security concerns with the economic interests of major American technology companies?

Should the administration impose tougher restrictions on advanced AI chips and technology transfers to China? And how much influence should executives like Jensen Huang have over policies involving their own industries?

More broadly, does this controversy expose weaknesses in how Washington protects sensitive technologies, or does it highlight the difficulty of separating business interests from national security?

Boomers hold a huge share of power right now, in government, in business, and in wealth. They're also often blamed for things like skyrocketing housing costs, rising tuition and student debt, slow action on climate change, and an aging political class that's slow to hand over the reins.

Whether or not you think that blame is fair, it raises a bigger question. Decades from now, when Gen Z and Millennials are in their 50s and 60s and holding that power, will the youngest generations resent us the same way? And will we repeat the same perceived mistakes, like hoarding wealth and housing or putting off long-term problems?

Conversely, when Boomers were under 30, did they resent the oldest generation of their time? Is it just a human constant for the young to blame the old, or is there something specific about this moment?

Edit: I wanted to bring up Gen X, but I honestly didn’t have much to say about them. I don’t think the younger generations have much ill or liking towards them.

P.S. I was just creating a discussion, so don’t attack me! :)

Maybe I'm naive because I haven't been following politics for very long, but I genuinely feel encouraged by some of the people who have been elected to the Senate recently, including Ossoff, Talarico, El-Sayed, and Hamilton.

I don't expect politicians to solve all of my problems, but it's hard to deny that the country has some serious issues that need attention. These candidates seem thoughtful, competent, and focused on improving people's lives rather than just generating headlines or winning the next news cycle.

For those who have been paying attention to politics longer than I have, does this represent a meaningful shift, or does every generation end up feeling hopeful that its newest politicians are going to change things?

Edit: To be clear, what these four seem to have in common is that they don't appear to lie, mislead, exaggerate, or make unrealistic promises simply to win votes.

For decades, Congress has handed power to the other two branches. It passes broad, vague statutes and leaves the details to executive agencies. It has largely ceded war powers, tariff authority, and emergency powers to the president. And when Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) ended Chevron deference, the final word on what ambiguous statutes mean shifted from agencies to federal judges, not back to Congress.

The judicial side of this has deep roots. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review, a power the Constitution never explicitly grants. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) went further toward judicial supremacy, the idea that the Court’s interpretation binds every branch. Critics from Jefferson and Lincoln to modern scholars like Larry Kramer and Mark Tushnet have argued this concentrates too much power in an unelected body. Defenders point to Federalist 78 and argue that courts are the only branch structurally suited to say what the law is. Loper Bright continues that trend, with courts claiming the final word on statutes as well as the Constitution.

The 2026 midterms gave the opposition party control of both chambers. There’s precedent for what could follow. After Watergate, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, the Impoundment Control Act, and the National Emergencies Act to rein in the presidency. But those laws have been weakened over time by court rulings, presidential workarounds, and Congress’s own reluctance to enforce them.

The structural incentives haven’t changed. Members are rewarded for messaging, not legislating. Delegating hard decisions lets them avoid blame for tough votes. And a majority that reclaims power from a president of the other party gives that power up for its own future presidents too.

Questions for discussion:

1. Given the recent electoral shift and the public mood, is there a realistic path for Congress to reclaim its role, or do current incentives (reelection, polarization, avoiding blame for hard votes) make abdication permanent?

2. Is judicial supremacy a meaningfully different problem from expanding executive power, or are they two versions of the same imbalance?

3. Would a reassertion of power under divided government be structural reform, or just partisan opposition that disappears once the White House changes hands?

4. What specific reforms would actually stick? Examples: sunset clauses on emergency declarations, requiring congressional approval for major rules (the REINS Act idea), writing more detailed statutes, or using Congress’s power over federal courts’ jurisdiction.

So I was doing some light googling on this because it will probably come up soon.

What I’ve got so far is that it is legal for congress to change the size of the Supreme Court without needing a constitutional amendment, and has been done so in the past. Court hasn’t changed in size since just before 1900, but before then it has fluctuated from 5 to 10 in size.

Easiest and the likely option is to just pass a law that increases the size of the court, but that’s not my question.

So I realize the chance of what I’m about to ask happening is zero, but I’m more curious of the legality or feasibility of it just for the lols.

In my research I found it is completely legal for congress to decrease the size of the Supreme Court. Historically it has only been done to seats that were vacant to mess with the sitting president at the time, and the increased agin later.

I want to know what would happen if say congress managed to pass a law decreasing the size of the Supreme Court to zero for one day than increasing it to 9 or whatever number. I realize of course this is just a sort of constitutional crisis as the court would eventually need to rule on the legality of the law after a few lawsuits. But I’m more curious about the theoretical of it. What would be the argument for and against (legally not politically). Also if government just ignores the court ruling in this AU, does decreasing the size to zero actually fire them legally or would they legally just get their positions back as soon as the size was increased again.

I’m more interested in this as a thought exercise, or theoretical on the nitty gritty of how the law is currently written. I realize this would never happen irl, just spitballing here.

So essentially what would the legal process be if this happened, aside from just hand waving and saying constitutional crisis?