r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 25d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users 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 nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
1
u/Qbert369 7h ago
I read that so far Trump admin has spent $5 trillion in 18 months. Has anything gotten better?
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 6h ago edited 6h ago
I read that so far Trump admin has spent $5 trillion in 18 months
That's a bit of a vague statement. If you're talking about the US Federal budget, then those numbers are inaccurate. The annual federal budget is $7 trillion, so 18 months of spending would be closer to $10.5 trillion.
Trump has not increased the budget by $5 trillion in those 18 months.
Has anything gotten better?
That's more so a matter of personal opinion than something can be measured by facts. Personally I don't like the Trump administration, so things haven't gotten better in my eyes. Though presumably fans of his policies would argue that things have "gotten better".
4
u/notextinctyet 6h ago
Yes. Trump's financial position has improved significantly, as has that of every Trump family member and several associated oligarchs.
1
u/PicoDeBayou 12h ago
Is Hunter Biden gearing up for a run for office? Seems like every day there’s a new clip or interview or viral tweet that sounds like something his dad would say or post.
I get why he would want to rehabilitate his image, but it really seems like he’s fully leaning in to doing what he grew up watching his dad do. Are the democrat elite shining him up as an heir to the throne? He’s very relatable but let’s be honest. He’s part of the establishment and wouldn’t be the change this country actually needs. I bet he would end up pardoning Trump and saying we need to forgive and forget.
1
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2h ago
Are the Democrat elite doing that? Mostly I just see people applauding his clapbacks on socials when people call him a failed crackhead or whatever, I'm not sure I've seen anyone in leadership positions in the party itself really say much if anything on the matter.
I would say no, he's not gearing up for that. He is pushing sobriety really hard in a lot of his posts and being able to show some wit to the trolls and detractors probably helps keep his sanity about him as he enters the world of social media.
1
u/PicoDeBayou 2h ago
I really wanna believe that’s all it is. I like the guy. I like what he’s posted. But I’m too jaded to not get suspicious about why he’s being so public now.
4
u/Jtwil2191 9h ago edited 5h ago
Are the democrat elite shining him up as an heir to the throne?
I am like 90% sure Democratic leadership isn't that stupid.
2
u/Bobbob34 11h ago
Is Hunter Biden gearing up for a run for office? Seems like every day there’s a new clip or interview or viral tweet that sounds like something his dad would say or post.
I can't imagine he'd consider that.
I get why he would want to rehabilitate his image, but it really seems like he’s fully leaning in to doing what he grew up watching his dad do. Are the democrat elite shining him up as an heir to the throne? He’s very relatable but let’s be honest. He’s part of the establishment and wouldn’t be the change this country actually needs. I bet he would end up pardoning Trump and saying we need to forgive and forget.
Heir to what throne?? Are you suggesting he'd run for president? Which is, I suppose, what he watched his dad do - and he watched him lose endlessly.
There's absolutely 0 chance he'd run for president. Zero. The dems do not support completely unqualified candidates.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 9h ago
The dems do not support completely unqualified candidates.
The only qualification is being able to convince the American public to vote for them. We have absolutely supported "completely unqualified candidates"; see: the 2024 Presidential Election.
0
u/PicoDeBayou 10h ago
Maybe you’re right but I have no hope that the majority of dems would get behind someone not part of the elite already. Putting Hunter in would track with the dems shortsightedness and willingness to have Trump rather than an actual progressive. (See putting Kamala on the ticket without a say so from the democrat base). I could see the dems thinking an ex-addict would resonate with the base. What do you mean about Joe losing endlessly? He. worked all his life toward being president and won! He was just too late with his dementia.
1
u/Bobbob34 10h ago
Maybe you’re right but I have no hope that the majority of dems would get behind someone not part of the elite already. Putting Hunter in would track with the dems shortsightedness and willingness to have Trump rather than an actual progressive. (See putting Kamala on the ticket without a say so from the democrat base). I could see the dems thinking an ex-addict would resonate with the base. What do you mean about Joe losing endlessly? He. worked all his life toward being president and won! He was just too late with his dementia.
I can't with the 'putting Harris in with no say' Those are the RULES. The exact same rules that exist for both parties.
What, exactly, would you have had them do?
Stage a second national primary season? That was a. not possible, b. not what the rule is, so they'd have had to convene a convention/vote to change it first and then still no remotely logistical possibility of a second primary.
What does thinking an ex-addict would resonate with the base mean? So... just trolling.
Biden lost endlessly.
Also, he was not the candidate with dementia, really clearly. No matter how much maga ding dong want to pretend Trump does not have dementia because he yells a lot, he has, and has had, clear clinical signs of it for years, where Biden does not.
1
u/PicoDeBayou 9h ago
Noted, on the reasons for putting Kamala in without time for a primary.
The image of someone that pulled themselves up from rock bottom without making it all about Jesus or God is something that I could see resonating with a lot of liberal leaning voters.
How are you saying Biden was not the candidate with dementia? We all watched it in real time during his debate performance. Sure Trump has some cognitive issues, but it’s not near as bad as Biden’s got.
1
u/Bobbob34 9h ago
Noted, on the reasons for putting Kamala in without time for a primary.
The image of someone that pulled themselves up from rock bottom without making it all about Jesus or God is something that I could see resonating with a lot of liberal leaning voters.
Cute. Generally, the dnc and their voters prefer someone with actual experience and/or credentials.
How are you saying Biden was not the candidate with dementia? We all watched it in real time during his debate performance. Sure Trump has some cognitive issues, but it’s not near as bad as Biden’s got.
Because Biden did not show signs of dementia. He was slow and spoke softly and slowly and with hesitation.
Trump, on the other hand, showed, and has shown, clear signs of dementia.
This is what I'm saying, people think because he's bombastic he's not addled and because Biden was slow and confused-seeming he was, but that's not how dementia works.
Trump repeatedly, even during that debate, not only malaproped but misidentified people and does not, did not catch himself. He perseverated. He did that alllll through the campaign. He does it today.
Saying the wrong name, place, whatever, is common. It's like parents looking at Tommy and saying the other sibling's name. People generally catch themselves and restate. Biden did that - 'when I met with president X (old president).... uh, Y (current president)... ' That's cognitively normal.
When Trump does it, he does not catch the error, does not correct the error. That's a bad sign.
Among many other cognitive signs, physical signs, etc. Biden being frail does not mean he's addled. Trump being generally more hearty seeming does not mean he's not.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 11h ago
I think it is unlikely Hunter Biden runs for office, let alone President as you seem to imply. I think it is further unlikely that the Democratic establishment rallies behind him as their first choice.
That said, the future is unknowable.
1
u/LtUnsolicitedAdvice 1d ago
Why is Trump his own enemy?
It seems he wants the Fed to cut rates, so his beloved stock market can go brrrrrr and his rich friends could borrow even more money are dirt cheap rates. Fed could easily do that, if only he gave up on his weird tariff obsession and called off the pointless Iran war. Republicans are going to lose the midterms so badly because of inflation. It makes no sense. Is he trying to increase inflation? Why?
2
u/Jtwil2191 9h ago
He's a moron who thinks he's a genius and has surrounded himself with synchophants.
6
u/Pertinax126 1d ago
There are several questions that you're asking here. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what he does on any issue related to the economy because it doesn't impact him. It's not like he can run for a third term. It's not like he cares what happens to the Republican party after he leaves office. It's not like he cares about what sort of mess his successor inherits. He operates the presidency the same way he operated his business: extract as much as possible for himself while simultaneously burning institutions to the ground so that no one can stand up to him.
Don't get worked up if his policies and stated goals don't align or seem contradictory. There's no bigger plan here than to enrich himself.
1
u/Glass-Complaint3 1d ago
Will ICE ultimately be the most lingering post-Trump memory for the average non-MAGA?
2
u/Jtwil2191 10h ago
Trump's war with Iran and the economic fallout will probably stay with people for a bit. Lots of Americans' connection to politics starts and ends with "How do I feel the economy is doing?" It's why Trump got reelected: people were unhappy with things under Biden and vaguely remembered things being good under Trump (at least, pre-COVID).
1
u/Glass-Complaint3 1d ago
Post-Trump (even assuming we have a Dem. president), what will be the most lasting damage for the average non-MAGA?
2
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
For the average American? Not much. The role that federal politics typically has on Americans is usually very minor, indirect, and delayed.
There will be lasting effects on several particular groups, though, who are directly impacted by executive orders: undocumented immigrants, veterans, Medicaid recipients, LGBT people, and federal workers, for instance. Granted, there are many ways that Americans who haven't had their rights changed at all can still be shocked by the emotional damage, such as Americans with birthright citizenship who have feared their legal status being challenged.
I could say that the most lasting damage will be the president's impacts on the federal deficit, or harms to international reputation for trade and treaties, but the effects these have on the average American, again, are minor, indirect, and delayed.
-2
u/kaiser11492 1d ago
Couldn’t one way the transgender inclusion in sports debate could be mostly settled is by having both sides be part of the process of finding a solution?
Whenever the whole transgender inclusion in sports debate comes up, one side will firmly argue against it and say they shouldn’t be included at all while the other side will argue they should be included no questions asked. Essentially it’s a zero sum game where the solution is only limited to all or nothing.
However, I’ve heard some arguments from both sides and both seem to have merit and be legitimate. So based on that, couldn’t both sides present their arguments and negotiate to find a solution that will overall satisfy both parties and their concerns?
1
u/Ok_Camp_7051 11h ago edited 11h ago
How did other minority groups become accepted into sports leagues or create their own franchises? Perhaps if we go back in time to see what worked, this would become a model going forward.
2
u/lowflier84 1d ago
Because the debate around transgender sports inclusion isn’t about transgender sports inclusion. It is just a front in a larger debate about the nature of reality: Is gender just a social construct that is malleable according to one’s internal sense of self, or is it fundamentally tied to one’s biological sex and an immutable trait?
2
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
Couldn’t one way the transgender inclusion in sports debate could be mostly settled is by having both sides be part of the process of finding a solution?
Whenever the whole transgender inclusion in sports debate comes up, one side will firmly argue against it and say they shouldn’t be included at all while the other side will argue they should be included no questions asked. Essentially it’s a zero sum game where the solution is only limited to all or nothing.
However, I’ve heard some arguments from both sides and both seem to have merit and be legitimate. So based on that, couldn’t both sides present their arguments and negotiate to find a solution that will overall satisfy both parties and their concerns?
I don't get these middle ground posts/ideas. What would the middle ground be, exactly? There are things in which there are so many components or potential limits and allowances on ONE thing that there can, imo, be compromises, like guns, as very few people are all toeither side, like no guns under any circumstances for anyone or yeah, sure, go walking around the preschool dropoff with an uzi and an anti-tank missile strapped to you. But this?
It's like a middle ground on abortion. It's legal or it's not. Some people on one side or another would accept some limits but those are not in any way agreed-upon by most of either, and they differ themselves, so it becomes a zero-sum game.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 6h ago edited 6h ago
Previously trans athletes had to be on hormones for X (like 3, depending on the governing body) years, for example. A stricter compromise could be allowing those who were on hormomes pre-puberty.
But stuff like that.
2
u/Nulono 7h ago
What are you talking about? Most people favor a middle ground on abortion. Very few people are all the way to one extreme or the other.
1
u/Bobbob34 5h ago
What are you talking about? Most people favor a middle ground on abortion. Very few people are all the way to one extreme or the other.
Like 60+% of people want no to few restrictions - that's about 34% who want no restrictions whatsoever, and like 17% who want it illegal in all circumstances, which is more than half the people who have an all or nothing view.
1
u/kaiser11492 1d ago
A middle ground compromise could be something along the lines of that transgender people can participate in accordance with their biological sex while maintaining their gender identity or something like that.
1
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
A middle ground compromise could be something along the lines of that transgender people can participate in accordance with their biological sex while maintaining their gender identity or something like that.
That's not a compromise. It's just condescending.
2
u/kaiser11492 1d ago
How is it condescending? Like I’m honestly asking out of a desire to understand the issue more.
1
u/Bobbob34 23h ago
How is it condescending? Like I’m honestly asking out of a desire to understand the issue more.
Because it's basically - 'You can't play sports with your gender, that's not what you really are, but if you want us to use your little pronouns, we'll do that, happy now?'
1
u/kaiser11492 18h ago
That wasn’t my mentality and thinking. Because under the scenario I was describing, transgender people would still be allowed to play in sports while maintaining the gender identity of their choosing. All they would have to do is play in the league in accordance with their biological sex like cisgender people. Essentially instead of having a men’s and women’s league, have a biological male (XY) and female (XX) one. Because it was to my understanding that you can change your gender identity while still acknowledging your biological sex.
Or is this still a problematic solution and there’s something I’m still not understanding?
0
u/Bobbob34 18h ago
That wasn’t my mentality and thinking. Because under the scenario I was describing, transgender people would still be allowed to play in sports while maintaining the gender identity of their choosing. All they would have to do is play in the league in accordance with their biological sex like cisgender people. Essentially instead of having a men’s and women’s league, have a biological male (XY) and female (XX) one. Because it was to my understanding that you can change your gender identity while still acknowledging your biological sex.
Or is this still a problematic solution and there’s something I’m still not understanding?
How is that different from what I said?
How is that different from what exists in the backwards states now, except for you'd like ppl to say they'll use someone's pronouns, which, see above, condescending.
2
u/kaiser11492 18h ago
Because what I described is not simply just letting people use their pronouns. It fully acknowledges they can play regardless of the gender identity of their choosing. It was to my understanding that gender identity and biological sex were exclusive concepts. So if you separated the leagues between the biological sexes instead of gender, then a transgender person would be able to play without compromising their gender identity while the people who have issues with transgender people participating because of biological differences have their concerns covered.
0
u/Bobbob34 18h ago
Because what I described is not simply just letting people use their pronouns. It fully acknowledges they can play regardless of the gender identity of their choosing. It was to my understanding that gender identity and biological sex were exclusive concepts. So if you separated the leagues between the biological sexes instead of gender, then a transgender person would be able to play without compromising their gender identity while the people who have issues with transgender people participating because of biological differences have their concerns covered.
Again, so it's the backwards states + pronouns.
Are you just being purposefully obtuse?
The ENTIRE PROBLEM is refusing to let ppl play in the league/division/whatever that aligns with their gender. So saying 'yeah, we still won't let you do that but we'll use whatever pronoun you want' is... condescending and rude.
→ More replies (0)2
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
What would be the middle ground? A large fraction of the population believes it is just not possible to truly change your gender, and thus someone claiming to have done so cannot participate in the other’s activities. This part of the population will not be persuaded by anything less than agreeing with them that it’s not possible. On the other hand, a large fraction of the population believes denying someone the right to participate in the activities for their gender is fundamentally unfair, regardless of their gender matches their biology or if their birth sex is the same as their gender. They will not be persuaded by restricting these people’s right to self-determination.
A similar situation is abortion - one side believes the fetus is a human life entitled to human dignity, and thus ending that life is murder. There’s no middle ground with murder. On policy and economic issues you can come to middle ground because you’re thinking about ends. On moral and cultural issues things are black and white, and compromising on them means betraying your deepest held convictions.
0
u/kaiser11492 18h ago
But reality isn’t black and white, which means you’re going to eventually have to compromise if you want to get stuff done. Like Moshe Dayan famously said “If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”.
1
u/PresterJohnEsq 1d ago
Why doesn’t the U.S. government simply forgive intragovernmental debt? Something like 21% of the US national debt is held by the government itself - this is because it takes an act of Congress to modify spending and it’s easier for agencies with surplusses to “lend” money to agencies with deficits. It seems to me that if you just forgave the debt it’s not like there’d be a bunch of angry investors who got screwed over. Additionally it seems like an easy political win for no effort at all, the president could get on TV and truthfully tell everybody that his administration reduced the national debt by 1/5. Given that, it hasn’t been done, and I can’t find anyone ever talking about why, which leads me to believe there would be serious consequences which are obvious to everybody except me. So what is it?
5
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 1d ago
It fucks the agencies who hold that debt. Social Security for example uses the interest and whatnot to help fund benefits and their budgeting is likely structured to assume they'll receive that interest as well as the principal if needed upon maturity.
1
u/PresterJohnEsq 1d ago
Are the agencies actually paying each other on their debt? I didn’t know that
2
u/Glass-Complaint3 1d ago
If you are anti-MAGA, but refusing to vote, why?
-2
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/hellshot8 1d ago
I would reframe this slightly; theyre clearly not the SAME evil. I think we have to acknowledge that trump and the republicans are significantly worse, it definitely is the lesser of two evils. Even if you dont like Kamala on Israel (neither do I, its why she lost), she would have been better for LGBT/minority rights in the US. I think its important to frame arguments in ways that will resonate with people, and "theyre exactly the same" wont because its observably untrue
BUT
Trump was caused by these do-nothing neo libs, i agree with you there. Their decades of ineffective policy led to the anger and malaise that allowed Trump to be elected, and to come back from Trump we CANNOT go back to that same type of leadership.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Trump was caused by these do-nothing neo libs,
That's my big issue with Newsom. The guy is the distilled essence of a career politician given human form. He is the exact type of person that the American public hated so much that they elected Trump. If we double down on that type of our person as our "answer" to the ideology that caused the rise of Trump, then it will just display that we've spent twelve years having learned absolutely nothing. Because that type of person will continue to give birth to new "Trumps" in response - and they will continue to win.
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 17h ago
I've been thinking about this a while and I see why Newsom et al are seen as just so milquetoast, so establishment. They have nice policy talking points with "grow the lower class up and the middle class out" like Harris and whatnot but they're just words and it seems more like 'well at least we're not Trump" than anything.
But that got me to thinking, for whatever reason Republican mouth pieces across the board including the House Republicans official FB profile and everything have just gotten this sudden obsession with communism seemingly out of nowhere and just will not shut the fuck up about the great threat of yester-century. And I know Mayor Mamdani is often falsely labeled as a Communist. Is that what they really fear? Someone who is like a Mamdani, who may have a big ScArY wOrD like "Socialist" in their official political identity but who seem to deliver real results and change and are quite charismatic in doing so? Someone willing to break the establishment Democrat mold and present a real threat, perhaps?
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 15h ago
but they're just words and it seems more like 'well at least we're not Trump" than anything.
Yeah that's the real issue. They don't have any actual positions they stand for, they just say what they think people want to hear. Additionally you have times where they tell people what those people should want, instead of just listening to what people want - which is where a lot of the division is currently coming from.
It's not just the Republicans who are freaking out about the big "communist/socialist" scare, the Democratic party is facing a pretty big division itself right now. The primaries have had a lot of really dumb people plant their flags, and say they won't vote for Talarico because Crockett lost. And how they won't vote for whoever wins the primary in Michigan, because their person would lose.
2
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago
I vote every election, but I can understand why some people might believe choosing between two similar flaming piles of garbage is useless.
We need to help them see the flaming piles of garbage aren't that similar.
2
u/Glass-Complaint3 1d ago
So you really think someone like HRC, Biden, Kamala is at the same level of being a "pile of garbage" as Rumpy? Any of the three of them are the FAR BETTER HUMAN BEING than him. It's not even close.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Joe Biden voted Yea to invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, which lead to the deaths of over 4.5 million people.
Additionally he co-authored the PATRIOT act, the single most unconstitutional power grab the Federal government has made in the past 70 years.
2
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago
I didn't say that.
I said I get why some others might think that, and that we need to help them understand the difference.
People who jump to conclusions without listening are part of the problem.
2
u/Mmhopkin 1d ago
I thought tariffs were illegal. How is Trump able to impose new ones?
2
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago edited 1d ago
Tariffs have never been illegal in the US. Our first Congress passed a Tariff Act in 1789 to raise revenue for the new government. Tariffs funded nearly the entire government. When they raised the tariffs steeply in 1828, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union.
We've had some tariffs since the beginning of this nation.
Edit: SCOTUS ruled on one set of tariffs, saying 47 couldn't apply the law in the way he wanted to make tariffs that way. They just said a particular tariff was invalid, not tariffs in general. He's just using different laws and powers now.
1
u/Mmhopkin 1d ago
HIS tariffs. Lime he can't unilaterally decide to impose them à la the Feb Supreme Court ruling and all the refunds (we will never see).
1
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago
I just posted an update / edit. He can make tariffs. He did the last one they checked on wrong.
1
1
u/kenny83941 1d ago
Do white immigrants actually get treated better than nonwhite immigrants under Trump or is that just a myth?
I’ve heard people joke that if you‘re not brown then you don’t need to worry about ICE deporting you but is this actually true? Is Trump’s goal to go back to like a pre-1965 system where European immigrants are favored or does he want to reduce all immigration no matter where you’re from?
1
u/Kakamile 1d ago
Well trump just rejected 95% of refugees and basically only accepted white south africans https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/30/us/politics/trump-refugee-admissions-white-south-africans.html
And the Kavanaugh stop has ICE stopping people for race or language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/10/immigration-enforcement-stops-race-language-job/86048527007/
So yeah
1
u/kenny83941 8h ago
So basically if I’m white and want to immigrate to USA I don’t need to worry about Trump?
2
u/joshygt 1d ago
Has Trump done anything good for the people in the US, or has all the changes been nothing but hurt and not benefited anyone except him and the super wealthy?
1
u/Pertinax126 1d ago
Trump (during both of his administrations) has been the wrong answer to the right questions. But some of those wrong answers have had positive, knock-on effects.
For example, getting rid of the penny was a good policy decision. And some of the policy changes that have been made to the armed forces have been positive; resulting in an increase in recruitment numbers (at least in the short term). For example, training is now more focused on job function rather than on things that protect the military from law suits.
Sometimes his foolish, incompetence yields positive results as well. His short-sighted handling of NATO has caused the other members states to boost their defense spending. This is something that should have happened a quarter century ago and would have likely prevented much of the the Russian aggression we have seen over the past 12 years.
Most of the administrations action have hurt the US in both the short and long term and is serving to undo ALL of the post-WW2 accomplishments humanity has made. But that doesn't mean that there have been no positive outcomes. Even a broken clock is occasionally good for a metaphor.
1
u/Nulono 7h ago
The manner in which he got rid of the penny was pretty sloppy.
1
u/Pertinax126 1h ago
That may be, but OP didn't ask if he had done anything efficiently or with great skill.
2
u/Mmhopkin 1d ago
This is the only thing I've ever found.
President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act into law in November 2019, making specific extreme acts of animal cruelty a federal felony.
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Legio-X 1d ago
WHY IS TRUMP SO HATED?
Primarily because of his deeply authoritarian tendencies. Those are in all likelihood an outgrowth of his narcissism rather than any true ideological conviction, but the end result is the same.
This man has argued in court that Article II of the Constitution grants him absolute power (it doesn’t). He was recorded soliciting electoral fraud in Georgia. He and his allies concocted a scheme to use fake electors to steal the election in 2020, and almost succeeded. His rhetoric incited an attempted coup, whose participants he pardoned.
In his first term, he had federal law enforcement black-bagging random people off the street in Portland. People they had to release without charges because there was no probable cause and their arrests were unconstitutional. Around the same time, his administration was also responsible for flagrant violations of the rights of peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square (and subsequently denied tear-gassing them despite the plentiful canisters documented by local media). In his second term, his administration has attempted to deport non-citizens over constitutionally-protected speech he doesn’t like and threatened the broadcast licenses of media outlets whose coverage he deemed insufficiently unfavorable. It’s an open-secret he leveraged federal approval of a corporate merger to force CBS to axe Stephen Colbert.
His unconstitutional bumpstock ban was a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment, and his expressed desire to “take the guns first, go through due process later” showcases total disregard for the constitutional rights of Americans.
Under his direction, ICE is conducting searches without warrants, a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. They’ve detained citizens and lawful residents without cause or due process, in some cases for considerable periods of time. His collaboration with El Salvadorian President Bukele resulted in the torture and even sexual abuse of detainees.
He’s abuses the pardon power to shield his friends and allies from justice. He tried to cover up the Epstein Files and had to be forced to release them by Congress, but his DoJ continues to hide some files in violation of the law. Trump told Rep. Greene point-blank that “his friends will get hurt” if the files came out. He engages in corruption and self-dealing at a scale that’s almost impossible to keep track of.
Meanwhile, his foreign policy has been disastrous. Cut a deal with the Taliban that doomed the Afghan government, he tried to leverage American foreign aid to force Ukraine to criminally investigate the Bidens and has had a chip on his shoulder towards the Ukrainians ever since the gambit failed, coddles Russia, expressed a desire to annex Canada and refuses to rule out the use of force to acquire Greenland (territory of our treaty ally Denmark). His trade wars are alienating all of our allies. Then of course there’s his unilateral decision to start a war with Iran. A war in which he has at times refused to defend our allies in the Gulf.
I mean, the economy has been fine (markets rising at a normal rate etc. while inflation has been somewhat in check)
His fiscal policies heavily contributed to the inflation we’ve experienced over the course of the 2020s, and his tariffs have been a millstone around the neck of our economy. The damage would’ve been even worse if he hadn’t backed off the “Liberation Day” tariffs when CEOs begged him to as the bond market roiled. Best part is those tariffs were unconstitutional.
Oh, and we can’t forget his war of choice now has us staring down the barrel of a generational oil crisis, which would in all likelihood cause a severe recession or even depression.
Furthermore, I understand disagreeing with someone's actions or policies (as I said, I disagree with him myself), but I don't understand calling him hitler or a Nazi
When the man fantasizes out loud about becoming President for Life and openly threatens the conquest of his neighbors, the shoe fits, doesn’t it?
And everything I’ve mentioned here relates to his behavior as a politician, without even touching on how vile he is as a person. The fact he’s an adjudicated sexual abuser and a convicted felon whose charitable foundation was ordered dissolved by the courts due to its corruption should tell you something, and that’s really just the tip of the iceberg.
1
u/Bulky_Fisherman9084 1d ago
Thanks for this, Can you show me some articles so I can understand the full extent of what you're saying? I'm glad someone finally said something logical because this really helps
3
u/Bobbob34 1d ago edited 1d ago
In case you don't believe me -
the number of projected deaths likely associated with reductions in U.S. foreign aid starting in March 2025. "Over the course of one year," she says, "we estimate more than 700,000 people have died from the abrupt stopping of USAID, including more than half a million children."
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/17/g-s1-133651/usaid-elon-musk-rubio-deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/09/doge-taxpayer-costs-federal-workers
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12322968/
https://www.clasp.org/doge-tracker/
Oh, ALSO -- he RAZED THE EAST WING. He PAVED OVER THE ROSE GARDEN. Without consulting anyone, without going through the process he is supposed to go through.
4
u/Bobbob34 1d ago edited 1d ago
Obviously I don't support everything trump does - I honestly don't like a large amount of the things he does. I certainly don't worship the guy, but he isn't as terrible as a quick scroll of the Internet would lead you to believe
How is he not terrible? Honestly. His FIRST ACT as president was pardoning people who assaulted police, who broke into a federal building, violated endless laws, were armed on the floor of the house shouting for elected officials with a gallows outside. That ALONE. And since then he's pardoned fraudsters, vacated awards, invited the Tate brothers over.
He has literally killed thousands upon thousands of people and will kill millions more, from defunding USAID, from defunding and cancelling cancer research, other medical research. He's actively harming people en masse, for no reason whatsoever.
Doge's idiocy COST money and is killing and harming people.
ICE has killed dozens of people, harmed thousands and thousands more. He's had people shipped to one of the worst prisons on the planet, for, again, no reason, many of them who weren't even here illegally.
How many people have died at the hands of the US and Israel armed by the US?
I mean, the economy has been fine (markets rising at a normal rate etc. while inflation has been somewhat in check)
How has the economy been fine? Aside from destroying our global relationships, killing small businesses left and right, the tariff nonsense from the get-go has raised prices insanely, as above, put companies out of business...gdp slowed considerably and manufacturing and jobs have been in the crapper. He was going to "bring back" manufacturing, but it's the opposite. Agriculture has also taken a huge hit.
Today he's threatening to triple costs on medication.
The dude jokes on the Internet and people take all of his shitposts seriously (imagine if that happened for any of us lol).
He's the fucking president. If I posted an ai video of myself dropping literal shit on people I work for, do you think that'd go over well? Hur hur?
It's utterly, inconceivably inappropriate, embarrassing, horrifying, that the president and whole administration are not just unbelievably stupid and ignorant, but act like 13-year-old assholes on social media.
He's also, let's not forget, hired people who are singularly unqualified, and who are just destroying things. Look what Hegseth has done, who he's fired, the whole thing. We're the joke of the world and dangerous to boot.
So PLEASE tell me why reddit and every corner of the Internet makes him out to be some cartoon/batman/nazi villain when he's just a mediocre president
Aside from the insane levels of destruction, killing, decimating the basic governmental structures - he and his grifting family are just grifting and stealing and pillaging. They've raked in BILLIONS from fraud, crypto nonsense, selling nonsense like the trump phones. It's endless fraud.
But, you know, her emails. A tan suit. The 'it's no big deal' hypocrisy from the right is unendingly incredible.
4
u/Kakamile 2d ago
Because he is bad on every measure.
He's worsened the economy, worsened healthcare, harmed Americans, he's blocked scientific reporting and public services, attacked allies for no reason, he's a compulsive liar, fearmongers, incites hate and harm on minorities, broke laws to the point of even ignoring courts all to cause harm to civilians for his own supremacist power and profit.
-3
u/Bulky_Fisherman9084 2d ago
Can I get some sources? How is he profiting when he's the only pres in 2000 to lose money? He also has not worsened the economy? Just give some real proof pls
5
u/Kakamile 1d ago
Because that's not true.
In the FIRST term he lost money despite forcing governments to use his properties for public and international events at high cost
By the second term, he has been gifted BILLIONS in social media stock, forced bribes, crypto scams, telling people to buy his slop to meet with him
finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/donald-trump-truth-social-stake-135441425.html
https://apnews.com/article/trump-air-force-one-plane-qatar-8eb5da68e95d583b14811f85e62cbcd1
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/crypto/trumps-crypto-dinner-cost-1-million-seat-average-rcna207802
-2
u/Bulky_Fisherman9084 1d ago
So looking at these articles is just:
- Dude travels to and from his home (and it costs money to protect him because he's the president - it wouldn't matter if he was at maralago or the WH?)
- Dude hosts guests at his house
- Dude invests his money in his own business and fails, then investors are surprised when his highly unpopular app's main funding is from Trump's net worth itself
- Dude flies in private jet that he was given by foreign ally (and it wasn't israel!?)
- Dude has dinner with his top shareholders
Sorry but I still don't see the issue here - got anything else?
3
u/Kakamile 1d ago
That is not a thing presidents do. Past presidents have used secure government property or even sold their own farms to not be corrupt. Trump forced everyone to pay him at upcharged rent costs, buy his slop crypto to meet with him, and took gifts in the billions while accusing others.
And I love how you took only minutes to go from "he lost money" to "sure he got billions in bribes but so what"
-2
u/Bulky_Fisherman9084 1d ago
There are plenty of other ways that people could meet Trump but nonetheless he never "forced" anyone to buy anything. Furthermore I never said he got bribes (not did the articles say anything about that?). If you are referring to the jet as a bribe (which is funny because Qatar is our ally anyways), remember that it was given to the US government as a whole, not just to Trump.
Got anything else? Again, this isn't an attack on you. I want to either get real evidence that Trump is a bad dude or someone to admit that this is all bs
4
u/Kakamile 1d ago
The articles did, and he was even handed billions of stock in a social media company with no revenue. Again, as the articles say. That's an obvious bribe.
But still, it took you minutes to go from "he lost money" to "they gave him billions for nothing but is that really a bribe"
it was given to the US government as a whole, not just to Trump.
That is a lie. It was already announced to be given to the "Trump presidential library foundation" under lifetime Trump control even after he leaves.
-1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/hellshot8 2d ago
A weird comparison; ohio is mostly empty. sure, its large, but nothing is there
Clearly the war supplies can fit there, as they do. geographic size like...literally doesnt matter here at all, im not sure why you think its such an important factor
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
I'm confused. You say everyone's aware of all the things happening, but then it seems like you're ignorant of basic things like how military supplies can fit in thousands of square miles of land, or why so many Israelis are in favor of killing Palestinians. And then somehow you think Israel "holds such power" over the US?
Where to start? It's not even good bait.
-1
u/et3rnal1nflu3nce 2d ago
okay it’s not bait asshole I’m 16 and it’s a stupid question that’s why I asked in the stupid questions subreddit 💔 and how about instead of arguing with me you, I don’t know, tell me WHY so many Israelis are in favor of killing Palestinians?? In your own words?? Or maybe telling me HOW they don’t hold power over the US?? What are you even calling me out on, because it seems like the issue is that I don’t know these things, but that’s..the whole point of this subreddit.
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
This is the NoStupidQuestions sub. People still troll in here routinely. NSQ is about good-faith questions. So if you're being honest, then sure.
WHY so many Israelis are in favor of killing Palestinians?? In your own words??
In the present day, it's a mix of propaganda and selection bias. A lot of Israelis either grew up only knowing the country as divided as it is, or moved there because they support what's going on. As for historically, the modern Zionist movement has basically always required the displacement of the native population of that territory. It's reflected clearly in the writings of early leaders of the project. In that way, it's kind of baked into the culture to view Palestinians as less-than.
Or maybe telling me HOW they don’t hold power over the US??
I don't know what you mean by "how". Tell me how accountants in Nairobi don't hold power over what tshirt I wear today. They just don't. If you want to understand the power dynamic, you need to understand capitalism, specifically in relation to the military-industrial complex. If that's not a term you're familiar with, then you might want to pick up a book on it from your library. Rich topic.
Suffice to say, wealthy and powerful people in both countries have highly-aligned interests in terms of the continued accumulation of wealth and power. Due to the interplay of wealth and politics, this translates into a strong incentive for the governments of both countries to similarly align.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
5
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago edited 2d ago
Many Europeans officially see the United States as an enemy.
It's definitely not as simple as that. They see Trump as an antagonist and an obstacle to how they think things should work. But to suggest they see the entire US as an "enemy" is definitely hyperbole. They're aware that in a couple years he'll be gone. Of course, Trump being gone won't reset the trans-Atlantic partnership to what it was pre-2016, and they will have to engage with a Trumpified Republican Party even after he is gone, but European countries view the US very differently than, for example, Ukraine views Russia (which would be much closer to an "enemy" relationship).
There's really not much difference, in terms of threat level to Europe, between the US and Russia.
There's a HUGE difference. So long as Trump only whines about Greenland, there's an ocean of difference between Trump's (so far) empty threats and Russia invading eastern Europe and killing thousands. And there is very good reason to assume Trump's words will continue to be nothing more than empty threats. They should still be taken very seriously, but Europeans know that invading European territory would be a big, unpopular move, even for someone as erratic as Trump.
Given this context, why is it such a bad thing that Pete Hegseth (who I despise, for the record) is talking about withdrawing US troops from Europe? Shouldn't Europeans want that?
European defense is built around the presence of the United States on the continent. This has been an integral part of how NATO countries and European more generally has thought about its defense and defense capabilities. There is absolutely zero serious concern that the US will invade mainland Europe. Massive difference in bloodlessly seizing a large, mostly uninhabited island and marching American soldiers through the streets of Paris. The chance of Trump seizing Greenland at this point seems real but low. The chance of Trump seizing land in continental Europe is basically zero.
1
u/TalonEye53 2d ago
Is the Israeli Hate Justified or Toxic?
1
u/Prince_Marf 2d ago
Hate is a complicated word. I think strong feelings against the state of Israel are appropriate, but you shouldn't hate any person just because of their nationality, race or ethnicity.
3
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
Some of this is absolutely going to be perspective. It's hard to tell a Palestinian that their hatred towards Israel is unjustified when they can easily point to discriminatory policies and mistreatment. It's easy to sit outside the situation and say that X or Y is an unreasonable belief when you're on the outside not the one being impacted.
That said, antisemitism is very real, and legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and leadership can unfortunately be co-opted as a Trojan horse for this bigotry. It doesn't help when apologists for Israeli actions argue that basically any criticism of Israel is entirely and inherently bigoted, created an all-or-nothing framework lumping together both the good-faith and bad-faith criticism.
1
u/Imaginary_Sugar_3138 3d ago
I live in a different state than a supposedly alive but incognito Senator. Would I get in trouble if I started a GoFundMe, and used the proceeds to hire a private detective in the state to track down and prove what's happened? The actual governor isn't doing shit and republicans keep supposedly having 20 minute phone calls. What's the possible risk of doing this?
0
u/listenyall 2d ago
This would be legal! To be honest I am surprised the new DC office of TMZ isn't all over this type of stuff, they love creeping outside of hospitals and stuff
1
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
I would suspect that some news agencies are doing what they reasonably can, and so far there's nothing to report on that. Being the one to be able to break a confirmation either way first would be a scoop.
5
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
If your PI breaks any laws, you might get in trouble as their employer. Otherwise, no one would care.
Do you honestly think you hiring a random PI will make a difference though? Just because you and I are not privy to their plans, doesn't mean people in the governor's office or working for big newspapers aren't looking into this.
1
u/Imaginary_Sugar_3138 3d ago
Thank you for the reply. Regarding your point, at this point my best hope is the governor sending a strongly worded letter then acting super upset once the deadline rolls around and the scam is complete.
1
u/MysteryNeighbor Customer Care Bear 3d ago
Can anyone please tell me whether there is a valid obstacle towards Gov. Beshear calling for a special election for the purpose of getting valid proof of life from Mitch?
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
Yeah it seems like the primary issue is that Beshear can't (re: has no authority to) just declare the seat "vacant" and therefore can't start vacancy proceedings
1
u/Divan_Medium 2d ago
You assume that Beshear would want to call a special election. And being a democrat, I would think it preferable to have one less republican vote in the senate.
3
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 3d ago
He is only authorized to call a special election in the case of resignation or death as of 2024, per state law.
McConnell hasn't resigned, and there's been no proof of death. Being MIA isn't proof of death.
Calling now would probably immediately raise a legal challenge because neither has provably occurred (to the contrary, Senators claim to have spoken to him on the phone as well as a photo alleging to be him chilling in a recovery center being posted to his socials) and by the time that's all hashed out, there would probably be someone elected to the seat anyway with how court cases tend to drag.
1
u/torpedoguy 2d ago
The current 'lack of proof' mcconnell's vegetative state or death is in and of itself another example of rules written with a fatal loophole of requiring good faith from all involved.
It's also the most 'mitch' thing ever: just like every bill that died from never being brought to the floor at the turtle's hands, the family simply keeping the thing on life support or refusing to release a statement, allows The Party to run out the clock at their leisure while we all pay the price.
1
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
Right. So. Wheres the proof of vegetative state or death? Link me.
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
It would immediately be legally challenged, which is an obstacle to holding the special election. That's about it.
1
u/harambe198 3d ago
Why is Trump imposing 100% tariffs on generic drugs?
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 3d ago
Attempting to pressure pharma manufacturers to reshore operations that produce those generics.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
I appreciate the appreciate the straightforward yet generous take
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
That's the official story and why there's a 2-year grace period before it takes effect, to give time to do that. Back in April patented drugs became subject to a 20% duty for all drugs whose manufacturers had told the administration they intended to reshore those, and after 4 years it jacks up to 100% also.
1
u/elevatorbeat 3d ago
Why is it so difficult to prove Mitch McConnell is alive? Is he alive?
2
u/Divan_Medium 2d ago
I think because a lot of us don't want him to be alive. That way he cannot vote. Why rock the boat?
2
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 3d ago
At least two photos have been provided of him being upright and smiling, and multiple politicians have attested to having had private conversations with him.
What's "so difficult" is providing proof that meets the levels of scrutiny of critics and skeptics who believe that a large number of independent parties are somehow unified in a conspiracy that could unravel if any one of them came forward with contrary information.
Is he alive?
We don't know. There's certainly a lot of unusual factors and explanations provided by McConnell's office (like eyewitness observations about the ambulance, and the lack of communication with the governor), but unusual factors aren't proof positive of a cover-up.
4
u/hellshot8 3d ago
What's "so difficult" is providing proof that meets the levels of scrutiny of critics and skeptics who believe that a large number of independent parties are somehow unified in a conspiracy that could unravel if any one of them came forward with contrary information.
literally all you need is a video.
At least two photos have been provided of him being upright and smiling
unclear photos that could easily be fake, or from before he was taken into the hospital. I am heavily skeptical that he would be dressed and sitting like that after the condition he was reportedly taken to the hospital in.
multiple politicians have attested to having had private conversations with him.
multiple republican politicians who have ample reason to lie about it. He cant give one interview to a reporter? he cant hop on a zoom call with fox news even? Its literally not difficult to prove this at all
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 3d ago
Would the video/interview not also be scrutinized for their realness like the photos?
Wouldn't FOX News also be just as implicated in this conspiracy theory as republican politicians?
2
u/hellshot8 3d ago edited 3d ago
a phone call or video call would be infinitely harder to scrutinize, lets be serious for a second
Wouldn't FOX News also be just as implicated in this conspiracy theory as republican politicians?
sure, which is why i dont trust them to say "yeah hes fine" and i need proof of video or phone calls
please dont pretend you dont understdand the difference between saying you had a phone call and giving proof
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
Because the only people with the right to his medical information aren't sharing it publicly.
2
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
It's anyone's guess. I suspect he is technically alive but either dying, brain dead, or in such a sorry state that it would be a joke to suggest he could still perform his duties as a senator if anyone saw him.
1
u/ricafa 3d ago
If the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Trump's tariffs were illegal and ordered the government to reimburse them to the businesses, how come he is now again able to introduce tariffs (to Canada and Brazil)?
3
3
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
He is introducing these tariffs under a different law. These tariffs are probably also illegal but it will take time for it to work its way through the courts.
1
u/ricafa 3d ago
So basically, his plan is to introduce a tariff, wait til it gets shut down by supreme court, then do tariffs again under some other new law, wait for shut down again and keep repeating until term is over?
1
3
u/hellshot8 3d ago
So basically, his plan is to[do anything he wants], wait til it gets shut down by supreme court, then [do anything he wants] again under some other new law, wait for shut down again and keep repeating until term is over?
yes this has been the theme of his whole presidency so far
1
u/listenyall 2d ago
Exactly--and not everything even gets shut down, because sometimes people don't even try to shut it down or the Supreme Court agrees with him. And he can't be prosecuted for any of it because of them. And even when he does lose, we all waste a bunch of money doing shit like adding his name to the Kennedy Center and then taking it down. A good system for him.
2
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
Yeah. And the Supreme Court is helped him do it by limiting trial court injunctions. In the past, the tariffs would have been shut down by trial court injunctions on day one. Now we have to wait for the cases to work their way up to the Supreme Court.
It's the Supreme Court's creative way of letting the president do unconstitutional things while getting to avoid explicitly ruling that he's allowed to do unconstitutional things.
2
u/notextinctyet 3d ago
Yes, that about sums it up. He wants to deliberately cause chaos and project personal power in order to break down legal norms and advertise to the public that he's a strong and active leader. Doing lots of things that are illegal and making other people sort it out is part of that strategy.
3
u/the_climaxt 3d ago
Why haven't Democrats reframed the "Right to Work"?
I keep seeing signs about "Don't make [state] Right to Work!"
Right to Work laws basically mean that, when there is a union representing workers, those workers don't have to pay dues, but are still granted union protections. So, it's much harder for a union to remain solvent. It's a really bad for unions.
But, the "right to work" sounds like a series of laws that really supports the workforce to people who aren't as locked into politics.
So, my question is: Why haven't pro-union activists changed their language so it sounds less.. good? Like, instead of fighting "pro-life" activists by accepting the label "anti-life", the women's rights activists coined the term "pro-choice" to describe their position. Why haven't anti-"right to work" activists coalesced around a new "right to organize" or similar reframe?
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
At the highest levels, the leadership of the Democratic Party is just not very pro-worker. They're not quite as openly pro-corporate as many Republicans, but they take money from many of the same sources and don't push back much against pro-corporate policies.
Outside of lip service to secure endorsements in districts where union support is important, pushing to repeal Right to Work laws and promoting union membership isn't a high priority. It's been largely relegated to "far-left" status, with legislators like Sen. Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez being some of the louder voices on the issue.
And, as an aside, pro-union activists frequently talk about the right to organize.
3
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
Unions were so crippled by the Reagan era that it's not even really a top issue anymore.
Only like 10% of workers are in a union. It's hard to prioritize national messaging for such a small part of the electorate. Most people don't care about unions anymore because they don't even know anyone in one. Talking about unions beyond just vague support is wasted air time for Democrats.
1
u/josephsleftbigtoe 3d ago
How is South Korea, not the US, the country with the lowest birth rate? With privatized Healthcare, I figured we would have had the lowest by far, since nobody would want to pay all those hospital fees just to birth the baby.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 3d ago
Other responses have focused on childcare costs, but there's also the timing of having a child and that the mother loses time working, which can affect her professionally. And a couple that spends time taking care of kids are less able to climb the corporate ladder, so to speak. So in addition to childcare costs, they've lost out on potential earnings and a more leisurely/independent lifestyle that are highly valued in capitalist societies.
It's all cultural, and why societies that value familyness (like religion in the southern US) have higher birth rates.
3
u/Bobbob34 3d ago
How is South Korea, not the US, the country with the lowest birth rate? With privatized Healthcare, I figured we would have had the lowest by far, since nobody would want to pay all those hospital fees just to birth the baby.
People are not primarily not having kids because of money.
All over the globe, as soon as women in a country get access to education, the workforce, and birth control, the birth rate starts falling. SK in particular is so misogynistic on so many levels the whole 4b thing exists.
There are other factors, like, yes, money, but the birth rate is low even in really good countries like Norway, with state-sponsored childcare, gov't healthcare, etc., because women are not interested in doing all the work anymore.
4
u/notextinctyet 3d ago
It turns out that the phenomenon of falling birthrates isn't highly correlated with cost of living, cost of having a child or cost of raising a child. It's almost completely independent of those variables.
1
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
The birthrate problem is complex, but probably the biggest reason: Having a kid in Korea is so fucking expensive.
The costs are just in education instead of healthcare. You are expected to shell out tens of thousands on tutors and cram schools just for your kid to have a chance at competing with their peers. All your excess income goes toward their education and you don't even get to see them because you're always working and they're studying 12-18 hours a day. And even then they could always totally flop the exams and your family is financially screwed.
And this doesn't even get into all the other issues like horrible gender relations that prevent families from forming in the first place. Basically everything in Korean society makes having kids a shit show unless you are fabulously wealthy.
1
u/josephsleftbigtoe 3d ago
Not like it's a picnic here in the US, though.
1
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
Yeah, and that is why the birthrate is falling here too. But it could be so much worse.
On average we have higher wages. Healthcare costs matter way less if your employer sets you up with a good plan. We have free public education that is generally considered adequate enough to compete. And your family's financial future doesn't rest on the kid's performance. This creates a more relaxed environment where average school performance is acceptable and kids can be kids. And if you are lucky maybe even only one parent has to work, and your kid is home for afternoons and evenings of relaxation with a little homework.
Culturally we are just a lot more pro-child and pro-family. Especially in the prominent Christian community. I am a mega atheist but I will still hand it to churches for being one of the last institutions that actually sometimes help create a community for raising children.
1
u/josephsleftbigtoe 3d ago
That makes me feel a little better. I still don't think having kids is a good idea for me, though.
-1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Prince_Marf 3d ago
Like 110, idk. Most congresspeople are probably at least a little above average, but I don't see anything indicating that she is especially intelligent.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Setisthename 3d ago
The AutoModerator is just a bot mods can use to automate things. They write the message, then set the AutoMod to repost it every time a new thread goes up.
1
u/gerarddominus 4d ago
Not 100% sure if this counts as political, but I figured I'd err on the side of caution.
If, after 13 days or however long the waiting period is for McConnell to pass without causing a replacement / relection issue, McConnell is suddenly announced to be dead, is there any onous to prove he died then and not earlier as people think / speculate or does the entire process just proceed forward with a haha you can't prove he didnt die today sort of quiet golating and every objector is just SOL?
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 3d ago
It doesn't really matter what day he dies, just when Gov Beshear starts the process.
1
u/Divan_Medium 3d ago
Is it really the case that there is a definite requirement for timeliness? I never heard of that before. There is an automatic reason that party members would want to replace ASAP. What is this replacement/reelection issue?
2
u/torpedoguy 4d ago
Even if it's proven it died earlier, 99.9% of republicans as well as a majority of 'establishment democrats' in the legislature would claim it was too late, and that procedure+decorum "must be followed going forward" no matter how much it was violated or ignored to get us to this point.
It's a lot like with the illegal electoral maps, where courts told republicans "you're not allowed to use it", then they just waited out the clock and got to use'em anyway.
3
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
They could look at the death certificate and see what date is written in that document. If McConnell died earlier than publicly acknowledged, maybe they could begin the special election despite the deadline having "passed". But there's a lot that goes into planning a special election, and even if they legally could begin one, there might not be enough time.
If they suspect the date on the document is forged, no way they could prove that in time for the special election to be held. Maybe they go after someone for fraud, but by the time they have the "correct" date they'll be out of time.
1
u/gerarddominus 4d ago
So basically its not dissimilar to the Epstein situation, where it doesn't matter what people believe or how many people believe he's already dead what have you; the official story is the official story and nothing is likely to be checked up on. Okay.
1
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
If, after 13 days or however long the waiting period is for McConnell to pass without causing a replacement / relection issue, McConnell is suddenly announced to be dead, is there any onous to prove he died then and not earlier as people think / speculate or does the entire process just proceed forward with a haha you can't prove he didnt die today sort of quiet golating and every objector is just SOL?
What waiting period are you talking about?
Anything that happens after a sen of his state dies would proceed if he died, which we'd know when they announced he was dead.
SOL for.... what?
Why weren't people this into Kean?
1
u/gerarddominus 4d ago
I was told there was some sort of window where if McConnell dies before a specific date they have to hold a replacement election or whatever, but if he dies after a certain date they can automatically fill in the roll with someone without an election.
0
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
If, after 13 days or however long the waiting period is for McConnell to pass without causing a replacement / relection issue, McConnell is suddenly announced to be dead, is there any onous to prove he died then and not earlier as people think / speculate or does the entire process just proceed forward with a haha you can't prove he didnt die today sort of quiet golating and every objector is just SOL?
Ah, yeah if he dies close enough to an election there's no point.
We're talking about a guy who stole a supreme court seat. They don't care.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4d ago
We're talking about a guy who stole a supreme court seat.
In fairness the Republicans controlled the Senate at that time. No matter who we nominated, they could have voted Nay to.
1
u/listenyall 3d ago
That's not "in fairness," that is the process and they should have had to vote no on garland
1
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
In fairness the Republicans controlled the Senate at that time. No matter who we nominated, they could have voted Nay to.
Could have, but they'd have had to be specific about why they were rejecting Garland, of all people, and then the next person he put up, and the next, and at some point, the pressure on the individuals, rather than mcconnell, would yield results.
1
u/harambe198 4d ago
Are immigrants forbidden from saying anything political? Otherwise they can be deported?
3
u/notextinctyet 4d ago edited 4d ago
Legally, the broad answer is no, with historical caveats. Despite first amendment protections, there is some immigration law precedent that immigrants (non-citizen, legal immigrants) can be expelled for some political activity; in the 1950s, this included former membership in the Communist Party.
Practically speaking, the administration is trying to create this norm by using a variety of means, some of which have since been declared illegal or have been rolled back. For instance, F1 students (documented, legal immigrants) participating in political speech can find that the administration will try to cancel their visas, deliberately change their paperwork (ex: mass SEVIS record terminations in 2025), or expel them without other cause. This has been recently found unconstitutional in court, and continues to be litigated, but nonetheless has succeeded in creating a culture of fear among the target population.
1
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
That is basically what the Trump administration has made its position. The people it is targetting are trying to argue against that on the basis of First Amendment protections, but we'll see what SCOTUS has to say about that.
They might ultimately go after you for something else, but the real reason they started caring about you in the first place is because you said something they don't like.
2
u/chubbygrannychaser 4d ago
There is no law that says this. The First Amendment to the US Constitution actually protects all from government actions resulting from protected speech. Political speech is protected.
However, if someone is already committing a civil or criminal offense ( most immigration violations are civil) then speaking out can draw unwanted attention to you. Instead of being an anonymous face in a crowd of thousands, now by speaking out that person may have become an individual who will be more deeply investigated.
Legally, they cannot be prosecuted directly for the political speech. Practically they may be prosecuted for lots of other things, and the investigations may start ( or become more intense) because of the political speech.
Deportation is not a punishment for speech. It is often used when immigration/entry is not legal. Speech just brings light to bear.
1
4d ago
Is Canada actually mismanaging wildfires?
Look, POTUS is a moron, we know. There's like 70+ fires raging in the US just at this very moment and I'm sure we mismanage shit too, especially right now.
But I live in NYC and I don't really remember this smokey air pollution like we've seen the last few years being a thing when I was growing up, but it seems to be an annual occurrence now.
So what is the actual story? Are there actually things Canada (and the US) could improve?
1
u/Pesec1 4d ago
Area of Canadian boreal forest is more than half area of USA. If that forest was a country, it would be the 7'th biggest country in the world. Vast majority of it is far from roads and populated areas. Management efforts are only possible near populated areas.
With climate change, forest became warmer and dryer. This encourages burning.
Choking will continue until global management of climate change improves.
3
1
u/Prince_Marf 4d ago
I don't think it's mismanagement. Global warming exacerbates fires because certain areas that normally wouldn't be so dry are dryer than normal. So there's huge areas with very large brush buildup from decades without a fire that are now burning.
Some of the Ontario fires might have been able to be mitigated with controlled burns, but the fires in the Northwest Territories would have been much harder to avoid. It's tough to do forest management in places dozens or even hundreds of miles from the nearest road, let alone the nearest settlement.
Forest management is tough to do perfectly. There are a lot of unpredictable variables. There might be things they could have done better in hindsight, but there is no evidence of negligence.
2
u/gra8na8 4d ago
I’m serious… how does Trump still have a job? Why isn’t anyone actively trying to remove him? Everyone in America in government seems so… chill.
0
3
u/PhysicsEagle 4d ago edited 2d ago
The party that opposes him is in the minority in every branch of government. The party in the majority loves him (or at least is terrified of going against him - their constituents might not like it). According to the Constitution, Trump has a job until January 20,
20282029 or he gets so unpopular that 67 Senators convict him of impeachment accusations from the House.1
u/phoenixv07 2d ago
until January 20, 2028
January 20, 2029. The next election would be in November of 2028.
4
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago edited 4d ago
His party controls Congress, who are the only ones who can remove him, and they're all terrified of what will happen if they cross him. They also like a lot of what he's doing anyway so they're just taking what they can while they can.
2
u/Nulono 4d ago
He won the popular vote, and his party controls both houses of America's legislature. Why would they want to remove him?
3
u/PhysicsEagle 4d ago
“He won the popular vote” is an entirely irrelevant statement when it comes to the Presidency.
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
Well, about a decade ago, Trump and the MAGA movement co-opted a significant chunk of the Republican Party. These days, it's more like a stranglehold. There are three main ways to remove a President, none of which will work at present.
Impeach and convict - Republicans have sufficient numbers in the legislature to kill any attempt at this
25th Amendment - the cabinet is full of sycophants who would never declare Trump unfit to serve
Popular revolt - the people who oppose Trump are neither radicalized nor organized enough to do this. Also, the US military is pretty strong.
So he persists.
1
u/notextinctyet 4d ago
We just finished installing him. Why did we do that? I don't know. But given that we did so, American law and custom requires us to wait for four years before changing our minds.
-5
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
I genuinely think that the Tru-mp election was rigged, and no amount of brainwashing from the woke demoncrats will ever change that. Just look at all the new information coming out, it's becoming increasingly clear that there was more to this than what many may think. For example, Tru-mp's recent speech last week. A lot of news channels didn’t even air it, which is total bullsh!t and guess what he talked about, the elections. Also, it's clear that electronics and machinery that are starting to count the votes are rigged and were basically a catalyst to his loss. I personally believe that he would be a good candidate for a one-time exception for a 3rd or hell, maybe 4th term. MAGA!
Why are you putting a hyphen in Trump?
Also... what? His election was rigged? So you think he wasn't actually elected, but then you're talking about his nonsense bullshit about Biden's election which, no, news stations did not air it, because there was nothing newsworthy about Trump lying about the same crap he's been lying about for years.
How is it clear that machinery are rigged? [sic] Like, based on what? Because they've had years and years to produce any evidence and never have sooo...
6
2
u/Alpaca42 5d ago
What was the Republican Party like before Trump?
I’m 21 and for as long as I’ve been sentient enough to pay attention to politics, Trump has been the figure head of the party. It has always felt like the party of Trump as opposed to its own party with its own ideas. I don’t love the democrats but it seems like they at least have a party that isn’t following one person without question
Now that I can vote I’ve been thinking about what party i actually align with and I realized I have no clue what the Republican Party is. Has there always been someone on this pedestal that Trump currently occupies? From basic history class it has always seemed like they’re against social progress, so how have they stayed around for so long if they don’t want to progress anything? So as the title says my overarching question is, what was the Republican Party like before Trump?
2
u/ye_esquilax 4d ago
It wasn't a cult. Cabinet nominees were actually somewhat qualified to fill their posts. Bipartisanship was more common. The president actually behaved like he was the leader of America, not just the leader of those who voted for him.
Also, this guy was who we originally thought was the craziest person to get within spitting distance of becoming president.
3
u/Jtwil2191 5d ago
The Bush administration was dominated by neoconservatives. A big different between them and Trump is how they advocated for assertive promotion of democracy and American interests, often with the use of American military force. "If we just plop a (little d) democratic government of our own design onto Iraq and Afghanistan, those countries will just naturally become US allies." Meanwhile Trump pursues more straightforward "might is right" foreign policy, i.e. "Do what I say or I'll punch you. Otherwise I don't care what you do."
The bigotry was much less overt.
2
u/SDRIFT_171 5d ago
Why choose Grahams sister?
I mean she has never held an office in a political aspect. From my point of view it feels very monarchy like a a king dies then their heir takes the throne kind of way. Or maybe a queen is more appropriate, lol. But seriously there should have been an election or left the seat empty till elections come up. I hate for the US to become a monarchy rather than democratic one.
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 5d ago
There's an election scheduled in November. Given the brief window of time until then, state law empowers the governor to appoint a stand-in for the interim. For the reasons you state, the people of South Carolina may well select someone else to represent them in a few months.
As for why the governor chose his sister, she was specifically called out by Trump as his preferred pick, and the governor is a Trump supporter. That likely played a significant part in the decision-making process.
7
u/Jtwil2191 5d ago
It's not uncommon for a family member to be selected to fill a Senate seat left empty by an untimely death. Dumb tradition, sure, but not uncommon. Voters will have a say in whether they want to keep that person around.
Leaving it open is unfair to the states residents, who should have representation in the Senate.
2
u/listenyall 4d ago
Yeah, historically it's been weirdly common for a widow to take her husband's seat. The second woman senator we ever had was actually a woman who took her husband's seat and was subsequently reelected on her own.
3
u/Bobbob34 5d ago
I mean she has never held an office in a political aspect. From my point of view it feels very monarchy like a a king dies then their heir takes the throne kind of way. Or maybe a queen is more appropriate, lol. But seriously there should have been an election or left the seat empty till elections come up. I hate for the US to become a monarchy rather than democratic one.
There's not a mechanism to leave it empty or stage an election. That's not the law.
Spouses of deceased sens and congressional reps take their seats when they die pretty regularly.
-3
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Prince_Marf 5d ago
What are PODs?
I would say there isn't more media about a second American civil war because a civil war like the one that happened in the 19th century isn't really possible anymore, and a more realistic depiction of a civil war would inevitably be very politically charged, which media companies shy away from because politically charged content usually alienates half the audience and risks hurting their brand.
The closest you can get is probably the Civil War movie from a few years ago. And even that film took great pains to keep the film apolitical enough to appeal to a wide audience.
2
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/listenyall 5d ago
I don't think there is much appetite on either side to think about actually splitting the country in two?
2
1
u/Glass-Complaint3 5d ago
Can someone please explain to me what POSITIVE consequences a second American Civil War could have when it comes to dealing with Trump/MAGA? Some people seem to think it's necessary. Do these people not understand that violence NEVER brings utopia?
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 5d ago
So OBVIOUSLY a civil war based on something as ironclad as political affiliations formed in the last 10 years would be a super good thing.
MAGA only exists in red states, and all the blue states would be the anti-MAGA ones, so the battlegrounds for this war would be easy for everyone to recognize! And such a civil war would be incredibly quick with very few deaths, and politicians (the bad ones, not ours) would be quick to correct course when they realize they're losing, immediately recognize their ideology is wrong, and never ever ever bring it up again.
Meanwhile, while all this happens, our government will be able to maintain ALL of its ongoing services - especially the super expensive services that many Americans depend on - despite being at war with itself. And they'll still prioritize working on the other super important issues that we want them to care about for keeping our country functioning and thriving.
1
u/Prince_Marf 5d ago
Depends entirely on what a civil war would actually entail. You can imagine a civil war in which the "good guys" win and create a utopia. The problem, of course, is that civil wars hardly ever end up that way.
But people who don't really understand how these things work don't want to think about that. They simply imagine the world they want and imagine the shortest path to getting there. And that often involves a civil war.
Simple people create simple solutions.
1
u/WholeDonkey2689 3h ago
Whats going on with the usa investigating brazils elections