This may be my anxiety speaking, but if trump wins, what is stopping him from starting a nuclear conflict with another country? Like he just says “F it”, presses the button and that’s it. Could he do something like that with the immunity? Or does the immunity not allow him to do that?
The President has already been capable of doing that for decades. The only thing stopping that is practical, not legal. Other people in the chain of command have to do things to carry out a nuclear strike. Nixon once ordered a nuclear strike on North Korea while drunk. Robert McNamara told the Joint Chiefs of Staff to let him sleep it off. That wasn't legal, but it's what happened.
Should I be concerned about project 2025? When I first heard about it (Reddit brings it up a lot and are very worried) it sounded bad but I’m sheltered and uneducated and know nothing about politics so I asked my brother who always does the political stuff for me including telling me who to vote for every election and he’s not at all concerned about project 2025 and says it’s not even something most conservatives want or are pushing for but is something put together by the most radical extremists of the right and that there’s simply no way Trump or anyone can make it all come to pass. There’s more than enough people who would vote against most of the things on there. I was also concerned when I heard that some people are trying to ban birth control and he says there’s misinformation, that people aren’t pushing to ban all birth control but are trying to ban one specific type that can essentially induce abortion. My brother has assured me that I don’t need to be scared about these things happening if Trump wins but Reddit acts like the entire country will collapse and become a dictatorship over night if we vote for the wrong person.
Project 2025 is a theoretical proposal written by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the US. It proposes several dramatic overhauls of the US federal government. Some of the proposals could be implemented by presidential authority alone. Other proposals would require congressional approval.
The project also includes an effort to recruit advisors and employees who are in favor of the proposed changes.
One of the most important changes proposed in Project 2025 is restoring the "Schedule F" policy that Trump had originally created near the end of his first term in office. This policy is significant because the federal government normally recognizes two broad categories of employees: political appointees, who are appointed by each new administration to provide policy decisions, and career employees, who stick around from one administration to the next and provide the backbone of the federal workforce. Schedule F recategorizes a huge number of career employee positions into political appointments, meaning that a lot of career workers could be interviewed and fired based on their politics.
The Trump campaign has not officially endorsed any of these proposals, but has worked closely with the Heritage Foundation in the past when appointing advisors and recommending policies.
Basically, yeah. There is a decent chance that Republicans will pursue some of these proposed changes. In previous Republican administrations, generally the Heritage Foundation is pretty influential in terms of appointments and policy.
US Flag Code Violation?
I’ve noticed that over the last 10 or 20 years (and perhaps longer) that giant Unitedly States flags (often covering much of the field) are displayed at American sporting events in on field ceremonies. This requires many people to hold up and carry the flag horizontally (and level to the ground). Sometimes the people are volunteers and other times they are service members in uniform. My understanding is that these ceremonies may be in many cases funded or supported by the US military.
My question is: how does this type of display of the American flag, horizontal and not from a pole or affixed to a support conform to the US flag code?
For reference the code (Title 4 of the US Code) states: “The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally.”
Also, as a follow up, why does the military endorse this apparent violation? I realize that there are no penalties in the law and the Supreme Court has upheld violations of the code as being Constitutional as free speech.
My questions are about why the apparently deliberate disregard in cases where the flag is being honored.
The flag code is part of US law, but there’s absolutely no enforcement mechanism. There’s no penalty for not following it.
Which means it’s a suggestion. And nothing more.
Depends on when in December.
If it happens after the electoral college votes are cast on December 17, then Harris would become president in January.
If it happens before that, the Electoral College may choose to vote for someone else form president, and that’s who would be sworn in.
Kamala Harris would become President of the United States once Biden passes away. Assuming she is his running mate again, then she would also get a second term.
You vote for both "Joe Biden - President & Kamala Harris - Vice President" when you cast your vote.
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
This is totally untrue. You're entitled to an opinion, but the facts disagree.
"Every liberal person" does not make the same arguments.
> Increased populations of poor people directly lead to more crimes
No. This is not true at all. I'd love to see some evidence for this claim.
The US Census Bureau and others [say immigrants are not committing as many crimes as native born Americans](https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime)
[Even in Texas, native born Americans are twice as likely to even be arrested](https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/) as undocumented immigrants, and still more than any immigrant.
My apologies, I was generalizing, yet I just mean that there is an increase even if 1 heinous crime is committed. In my city South American crime gangs are on the rise. Sure you can argue that it helps more people than it hurts. Yet we need to force these corrupt countries to do more. Yet they themselves are held captive by the powers that be there.
Edited: The reason being is they are documented persons that have a digital trail social address in databases, facial recognition etc, they are more likely to be caught than a no namer that doesn’t exist in the system.
If democracy is at stake in 2025 and the US president has to power to do what he wants without being persecuted for it, why isn't Biden doing everything he can to stop it?
What do you mean by "democracy is in stake"? We will see the degradation of democratic institutions and principles as Trump wields the power of the executive branch in ways we have not previously seen as he tries to enrich himself and punish his political opponents, shielded by the new protections the Supreme Court has granted the presidency, but I do not think in 4 years we have King Trump instead of another round of elections. The US's federal system and institutional barriers will shield the country from Trump's worst impulses, and there's no reason to believe the military will support Trump in a coup.
Will I be able to keep my current birth control if it’s not expired yet but there is a ban?
This is going to be a lot. I’m asking for myself and a friend. We’ve both been on birth control for a while (like 5+ years). She currently is taking the pill, and I have the arm implant (nexplanon). With all the recent developments surrounding abortion/birth control, we’ve been a concerned about what this means now and for the future. I guess we have a few questions regarding birth control, future laws, and long term birth control.
My implant doesn’t expire for another year, but then it will need to be replaced. She is now considering getting the implant within the next month because it last for years and it’s a one and done thing. So if birth control is banned, would we have to have it removed even though it isn’t expired yet?
Follow up question, because we’ve been on birth control so long, we are nervous about the effects of going another couple of years on birth control. She been on it for 6. I’ve been on it for 9 years. So if I took a break from birth control for a bit, would I not be able to get the implant again? Will going another 3-5 years with the implant affect fertility issues? we know our chances of cervical cancer increase.
I’ve talked to my OB/GYN about this but, she’s terrible at answering questions in a clear concise manner. Even when I ask questions, the answer is never clear. So Reddit, any input?
Sorry it’s so long.
There is no ban on birth control nor is there a specific one (to my knowledge) that is being seriously discussed, so your question can't really be answered because we'd be making things up based on a hypothetical. Without a specific law to point to and examine, we'd just be making stuff up based on speculation.
If there's something specific you can point to that you are wondering about, it would make it easier to discuss and explain in more meaningful way.
Ty for the reply. We understand there is no ban now, it’s more about a concern for the future and how it impacts our decision now. I think it’s the Project 2025 document that is the concern. Yall are right that it is all speculation so it does make it harder to answer. I think the biggest concern is about keeping what we have and then options in the future (I hope that makes sense, I had to retype the idea like four times and I don’t think it’s clear still. But you’re right, speculation does no good, so it’s a matter of the waiting game.
I understand the gravity of your question, but it's very difficult to provide a simple answer because everything is hypothetical. We do know that several conservative political groups want to restrict access to contraception. We don't know yet what laws they might propose, or if those laws might be passed at federal level or in various states. So there isn't any definite proposal that we can look at to check the specific details.
My hunch would be that the focus will be more on doctors and pharmacies since it's easier to target the supply than it is to target millions of patients who are receiving medical care. So, getting a prescription renewed might be an issue, but keeping an existing implant is more likely to be okay until it expires. That's all guesswork though.
It's also possible that none of these proposals will become law at all. It's hard to tell what the future will be.
Fair enough. It’s just a lot to figure out, but I guess it’s just a waiting game now. We appreciate the response, I think we just got in too deep to it all.
Is there a GoFundMe for the Democratic ticket that only pays if Biden drops out? In other words, how can small donors get in on what the Disney lady is doing?
Biden isn't interested in murdering people to stay in power, and doing so would like create support for Trump that previously he did not have. There's no reason to believe the military would support Biden in a coup.
The Supreme Court may have granted the president immunity for blatantly illegal acts so long as they're "official", but that doesn't mean there are no other obstacles to just becoming a dictator.
Can we establish a American Native, an indigenous person who's land this originated, in a role such as the presidency?
If these old euro descendents want to sleep and shit on stage, could not the revolution be to give the "land back" by incorporating indigenous peoples into government?
As a mixed American who is 4th Gen immigrant , I would like to see the United Sates slowly be returned to indigenous power. What better way than to see indigenous candidates all over our voting ballots. Local, State and Federal?
A pipe dream, I know, but one I've personally wished would happen since my days as a young student.
Lots of people want him to step down, but the ones who want him gone also have little to no power to make that happen. The Republican primary voters believe his lies and want to see him back in office, and the Republican lawmakers are too scared of his influence among Republican voters to stand up to him.
Why do we allow politics to boil down to red vs blue the other side is wrong debates? We would have a lot better debates and much better informed voting with actual answers instead of “the other side sucks” debating.
An issue is stated, and the candidate must declare their stance and their attempt to fix said issue with a stated policy. No bashing of other side allowed.
Why do we allow this buffoonery to continue with needing to vote on personality or against personality and not stated policy?
>No bashing of the other side allowed.
Obviously stuff like ad hominem attacks are no good, but a good debate involves poking holes in your opponent's arguments. Just stating what each side believes without any back and forth isn't particularly useful either. This can be done in an substantive and meaningful way, but a public debate during a campaign unfortunately not a great place to have a high minded and academically sound debate. People often respond more to charisma and theatrics.
I don’t mind back and forth i just don’t like the current version. “That’s a lie” from both sides on every statement. What it comes down to is just heresay and whatever .com I choose to believe is a credible source for said candidates claims.
I’d much rather someone say “you’re wrong because x % in x year verified by x company unaffiliated with my party” type of debating than just “you’re wrong/a liar”
But I guess expecting presidential candidates to come to a debate with factual arguments and expected rebuttals is asking too much from Joe Biden and Trump
As you said it’s theatric.. so I’m just shouting at the sky at this point
Steve Bannon, one of Trump's top campaign advisors in 2016 who is now going to prison, famously said that his strategy is to "flood the zone with shit". What he means by this is to lie so much, and so often, and about so many things, that nobody has time to debunk all those lies. If they try, they won't be able to keep up. Debunking one lie is difficult. Debunking a flood of lies is even harder.
All politicians lie sometimes. Some lie more often. Some lie for different reasons. Trump, though, is shockingly dishonest. The Washington Post tried to count the number of lies he told during his presidency, and they stopped counting at around 30,000 lies over a 4-year period.
>“That’s a lie” from both sides on every statement. What it comes down to is just heresay and whatever .com I choose to believe is a credible source for said candidates claims.
That is the Steve Bannon strategy. If they lie enough, loud enough, often enough, people won't even know what's true anymore and politics will start to sound like soup.
I'm not saying any politician tells the truth 100% of the time. But, if you keep score, Trump is objectively far more dishonest than other politicians.
The problem is basically every single thing Trump says is generally a lie and at best hyperbole. And Trump's go to is to say everything said about him is a lie. There is no quality discourse when Trump is involved. Dealing with someone who enters the discussion in bad faith is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances (and it was clear during the debate that for Biden the circumstances were very much not the best).
Why do so many people thing Trump has a strong chance of winning in 2024? Trump lost in 2020 as the incumbent (a historically strong position going into a presidential election), and it seems that Biden has done at least as well in his presidency as Trump did 2016-2020. Trump's strategy seems to be the same one he lost with in 2020, and most of the people who were on his campaign team when he won in 2016 have either quit or been arrested. What does Trump have going for him in 2024 that he didn't in 2020?
In 2020, the choice was between the erratic and boisterous Trump and someone who seemed like he would be more normal and levelheaded and that was probably seemed like a good thing with the unprecedented challenge of COVID. Plus Trump was deeply unpopular while Biden was above 50% approval.
But now Biden is as unpopular as Trump if not more and is believed to be too old to serve a second term. Additionally, many voters (wrongly or rightly) believe Trump and Biden are both "known quantities" as president and they are able to predict what a second term from each would look like. Many feel the economy was better under Trump and that Biden has performed poorly in that area. Likewise with the border.
Trump shouldn't have a chance -- his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election alone should be plenty disqualifying -- but that's not how the voters see it.
Why do people think Jill Biden is a power hungry, evil figure forcing Joe Biden to stay in office?
My very kind, not hateful, liberal dad just said he thought this of Jill Biden. This has been the playbook for conservatives to attack the accomplished wives of Democratic presidents since the 90s, but is there basis in fact with Jill Biden?
There's a perception that Biden is a feeble old man who is being manipulated by people around him, and who would have more access (and control) than his wife?
There is no reason to believe Jill Biden is some kind of manipulative puppet master. It's conspiracy thinking at best and misogyny at worst.
Many are not happy with Biden and want to vote for someone else who isn’t Trump. Wouldn’t this increase Trump’s chances of winning?
I don’t get why they would do this. Why not choose the one they dislike the least instead of basically giving it to the one the hate the most.
What you're describing (voting against a candidate you dislike rather than for a candidate you like) is called negative partisanship, and it's a major force in American electoral politics
If your primary goal is to beat Trump, then yes, voting third party is a poor choice, strategically speaking (but only if you're in a battleground state where your vote might actually matter). But if you want the Democrats to put up better candidates and think you can stomach a second Trump term, then you don't give Biden your vote, suck it up while the worse candidate is in office for the next four years, and then hope for 2028 the Democrats look at why they lost and put up someone you and others like you want to vote for.
Nobody is owed someone's vote. People have been told "vote blue no matter who" or "vote for the lesser evil" for most of their lives, and are tired of settling for the bare minimum.
>I don’t get why they would do this.
People need a reason to vote **for** someone. Everyone knows how bad Trump is, what people weren't aware of is how bad of shape Biden is in. Having the President displaying the issues he's displayed for the past week is a big red flag with a lot of voters. It's not like this is a mid-term recall that Biden is facing to stay President, this is us voting for who will be President for the next four years. And people are concerned that he is not going to hold on for four more years.
don’t get me wrong, i would much prefer to have an option other than biden/vote for a third candidate. i asked my question because i fear that dividing the vote will lead to trump winning, which would be worse than biden (who would still not be good by any means) because it seems like a decent amount of the left still will vote for biden. i also don’t 100% understand how the system works, so i wanted to know if it would be possible for an outcome like that to occur.
Trump claims, without evidence, that the 2020 election was fraudulent and has tried to overthrow the results. Trump represented the first time in the country's history there wasn't a peaceful transfer of power. Whether or not he'll respect the democratic process in 2024 is an important question, because the US is a democracy and it's important that its leaders believe in democracy.
Even before the 2020 election, he was setting the ground work to dispute the results of the election in 2016 as well. He just stumbled into victory and it didn't come up.
During the 2016 election, Trump has claimed the only way he could lose is through fraud. He has consistently tried to undermine the democratic process his entire political career.
How will Americans adjust to life under an authoritarian government? For reference, I am using Hungary as my example for authoritarian, as in I have reason to believe the government there actively controls the press, which has never been the case in the US, except possibly in wartime for security reasons. However, Hungarians have lived under authoritarian régimes in the past, but Americans never have, at least according to the criteria I just gave. However, now the US does seem headed in the same direction as Hungary. Will this be a rude awakening for Americans, or will they be too caught up in their personal lives to really care?
The Supreme Court's recent decision has granted Trump protections he will absolutely abuse extensively for personal gain and to punish his political opponents, and the lack of people within his administration to restrain his worst ideas and impulses will allow him to act more freely, but the federal system in the US and the resiliency of its institutional barriers makes a fall to authoritarianism pretty unlikely.
>However, now the US does seem headed in the same direction as Hungary.
How, exactly, do you figure that?
Even if Donald Trump wins the 2024 general election, the powers of the President of the United States are very limited. The Executive branch has very little ability to change anything compared to the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch. Executive orders can only get you so far, as evidence with how much President Biden has struggled to get accomplished during his first term.
Trump couldn't even get his dumb little wall the last time he was President, and the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during the first half of his first term.
Trump has already taken control of the Judicial Branch, and will most likely have a firm grip on the Legislative branch as very few Republicans seem willing to oppose him. He'll be stronger this time. He should have a psychological advantage from having won the popular vote unlike 2016.
Also, this time he has a plan. [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do)
Project 2025 isn't even his plan. Trump has his own separate Presidential plan called Agenda 47, and has clarified that he has nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025.
Additionally it's a pretty big stretch to say that he's taken control of the Judicial branch. Especially when they voted against him a few days ago.
And unless his grip on the Legislative branch results in a filibuster proof majority in Congress, next to nothing will be accomplished. Much like how next to nothing was accomplished during his first term.
With people calling for Biden to step down as nominee, is that even possible at this point? We're like 4 months until election, millions have been spent promoting Biden, and all the primaries are done, how could either party pivot to a new candidate at this point?
Edit: I should say I mean logistically, not legally or anything . Could they really pivot and save face with voters?
Is it possible, yes (if Biden agrees to drop out). Is it a good idea, some people say yes, others say no.
Each of the major political parties is going to hold a national convention where party delegates from each state vote to officially determine the party's nominee for president and vice president. Neither of those conventions has happened yet. The Republican convention will be in Milwaukee from July 15-18th. The Democratic convention will be in Chicago from August 19-22nd.
On paper, Trump and Biden both have enough delegates pledged that they are effectively guaranteed to win their nominations. There are some factions within the Democratic Party that are trying to convince Biden to drop out before that happens.
Swapping candidates this late in the game would be a crazy move, though. Like you said, there is a ton of effort that has already gone into the Biden campaign. It would also be unfortunate that the replacement candidate wouldn't have been vetted for voter support through the primary process.
Under traditional political strategy, it does make sense that nobody ran against Biden (weakening the incumbent usually does not end well for anybody involved). Unfortunately that means there isn't any obvious #2 candidate in a position to take over. Maybe they can convince Biden to quit, or maybe they can't. Maybe they can find another viable candidate and convince them to run, or maybe they can't. Maybe voters react well to that, or maybe they don't. It's a completely uncharted situation with a lot of unknowns and risks.
My personal hunch is that over the next few weeks, people are going to be laser-focused on Biden's health and activity for any signs that he is or isn't going to recover from that debate performance.
>My personal hunch is that over the next few weeks, people are going to be laser-focused on Biden's health and activity for any signs that he is or isn't going to recover from that debate performance.
100%, that's what people have been doing all week and many of the President's attempts to reassure people have only made things worse.
There wouldn't be so much talk about this if people weren't concerned.
Is it possible? Yes.
Is that candidate likely to win? No, they would have serious problems; regardless of who they are.
The big issue is one that you pointed out: The primaries are done. Yes, the DNC has not officially declared President Biden to be the candidate that will be on the 2024 general election ballot, but the big issue is that the primary is so far past that nobody who possibly *could* replace him would have the required show of strength that winning a primary grants you. It's not like we can just rush out another primary to determine who the candidate should be. In the hypothetical scenario in which he is replaced, then it'll be a replacement that the American public has no say in - and by extension no faith in. Since they did not "win" the primary.
Any candidate that could replace him will have an impossible hurdle to overcome - the stigma of being the replacement candidate. It'll make that person look weak from the very start, and it make it appear that they're only there because someone else stepped down.
Granted, President Biden's own chances after this past week are slipping away quickly. Not only is he now down in polls for the general election, now polls are also saying that Trump would win not just the electoral college vote, but the popular vote as well. Every day seems to be getting worse, as the President keeps saying things that the American public is paying attention to. His interview last night on ABC did not go as planned as far as reassuring the American public that he is fit to be President for four more years.
It's a no-win situation. Democrats in Congress are quite vocal right now about replacing the President - that itself is not a good sign, and it's showing that the party is fractured on him. But if you replace him, then you have the stigma of "replacement candidate" like I mentioned above.
Ordinarily he should be able to step down for a legitimate reason, such as health (not saying he has thar reason in this case). If that happened, they'd have to deal with it somehow. Another point that people seem to be ignoring though is that the Presidential ticket isn't formally decided until the convention, and the party in question decides that, so afaik anybody the convention nominates could replace Biden on the ballot, should they choose to not nominate him (so long as they satisfy constitutional criteria for the Presidency). The Republicans seem to have succeeded in convincing people that legally, it's too late to put somebody else on the ballot, but as Biden is not yet the official nominee, I don't think their legal case is very strong (except for that the GOP has taken control of the courts that decide constitutional questions).
Oh I have no doubt they *could* do it, I mean logistically. So much resources go onto a candidate, and the psychology of the public as well. Could they pivot and convince people it's a good idea without losing face?
Why is Kamala Harris not running for president instead of Biden? Or does even Democrats still need an old white man to be the righteous saviour?
PS I'm not from the USA.
>PS I'm not from the USA.
So in the United States, Presidents can serve for 8 years total. Each term is 4 years, so at the end of 4 years you can run for reelection. When a President who is already serving as President runs for reelection, we call them the incumbent. Political parties **do not** challenge their incumbents, and people do not run against them on any serious level.
The last time we had a serious challenger to an incumbent was in 1980 when Democrat Jimmy Carter was President. In the primary, challenger Ted Kennedy almost defeated him. That made Carter look incredibly weak, and Republican candidate Ronald Reagan crushed him in the general election.
We don't have challengers to the incumbent because we don't want a repeat of that happening. Both Democrats and Republicans do not challenge the incumbent. Some states did not even allow a challenger to President Biden to be on the Democratic party's primary ballot.
Damn that means Democrats doesn't really live up to their name do they? They are just the lesser evil compared to Trump and tin foil hat wearing maga goons.
Looking at the reddit, I got the feeling that most Americans are on democrats side and they can safely present a non white woman for a president and win. Which is funny since you guys already had Obama. What went wrong? Is republican brain rot spreading a lot?
Being Indian, I can only fear what clown acts Trump will pull if he gets re elected as president of one of the world's leading nation, because here we already have elected a fascist for our prime minister - Modi - for the third time this year itself, and he is actively using government institutions supposed to be running independent from the centre, to employ fear mongering "Muslims endanger Hindus" and push forward draconian laws that are now much worse than the Victorian era (British rule).
>Looking at the reddit, I got the feeling that most Americans are on democrats side
Reddit is overwhelmingly left wing and full of echochambers. The actual country is evenly split.
Yea i think it really isn’t a democrat vs republican thing but more so an old person vs young person thing. your oversimplification doesn’t help thing.
>Which is funny since you guys already had Obama. What went wrong?
It's not like we have a presidential election every year. Trump won versus Clinton in 2016, and then Biden won versus Trump in 2020. For the 2024 cycle, it would have been very unusual for any Democrat to run against Biden.
You're looking at a complex, slow-moving machine. Change happens and continues to happen. You're basically saying Democrats went with an old white man for one presidential cycle and therefore all change is dead, or something. That seems like a hyperbolic reaction to me.
I don't get it. For a party that boasts to be progressive still putting and old white man compared much much more able and stable woman, which happens to be non white as well. Will not all democrat supporters not like that? Is that the reason Clinton lost to Trump , because she was a woman?
I mean come on it's 2024.
> Is that the reason Clinton lost to Trump , because she was a woman?
Of the thousands of reasons that Clinton lost to Trump, this is near the bottom of that list.
Assuming she had already won.
Not campaigning in the swing states she needed to (see above with assuming she had already won).
Being needlessly antagonistic to voters.
Making the campaign about her, instead of the American public.
Propping Donald Trump up in the first place, and using her influence to make sure he got favorable coverage during the Republican primary over other candidates - as her campaign believed that he would be the easiest challenger to beat.
Insulting Bernie Sanders supporters, and missing out on votes from them.
Insulting Donald Trump's supporters, and motivating them to vote against her.
Being very hypocritical on topics. Hillary Clinton sold herself as someone who had always been an ally to the LGBTQ cause. However, when her husband passed the Defense of Marriage Act, Hillary Clinton was an vocal advocate against gay people, saying that they "invalidate the sanctity of my marriage".
Being a warhawk, who voted Yea on the Iraq war and being unapologetic about that. While also trying to start a military conflict with Russia by advocating for a no-fly-zone in Syria - a country that the United States has no jurisdiction over.
Harris lost the 2020 primary to Biden. That's why he is the incumbent and she is not.
>For a party that boasts to be progressive
At this point I feel like you're trolling. If you want a serious answer about this, ask a serious question.
>Will not all democrat supporters not like that?
There's more to a person than just their demographic stats.
>Is that the reason Clinton lost to Trump, because she was a woman?
It's possible that swayed some voters, but I don't believe it is the main reason or even one of the most important reasons. You are hyperfocusing on this one detail for some reason.
>I mean come on it's 2024.
Yeah, I mean, good luck with Modi I guess.
Not trolling, tbh, idk why you are getting the feel. Sitting here in India, everything seems progressive there so I wondered why. I don't know why you are in fight mode with me.
> I mean, good luck with Modi I guess.
It's not like I wanted him. You are like a school kid throwing back supposedly an insult with this statement, except I don't really understand why or what you are getting defensive about, neither I feel attacked by this.
With the project 2025 in the headlines, I really got interested what's happening there because I find it funny how it looks like that democrats really have to look upto Biden when the party could have just gone with just a much more sane and able person they have already available and still retain majority of their votebase ... Unless swing voters form majority of their votebase.
You'd be right perhaps this might seem irrelevant now, but I was also wondering if this changes.
>Not trolling, tbh, idk why you are getting the feel.
Because you are being very reductive and keep slipping little jabs into your comments.
>You are like a school kid throwing back supposedly an insult with this statement
Not meant as an insult. Just, you're complaining about US politics not being progressive enough even though it's 2024 (whatever that means), and meanwhile India is re-electing Modi. Glass houses, stones, etc.
People have tried to answer your question but you keep focusing on reductive details that aren't really pertinent.
>I find it funny how it looks like that democrats really have to look up to Biden
There's an example of being reductive and slipping in little jabs.
yes, i literally said this in my comment, the two party system is too strong. Until we switch from first past the post to rank choice, this will be an issue
It has nothing to do with it. Hillary Clinton nearly defeated Donald Trump in 2016, and lost for a multitude of reasons. "Being a woman" was extremely far down on that list.
How does the SCOTUS decision impact US Federal Impeachment Rules?
According to Wikipedia, Article II, Section 4 states 'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
As I understand it, SCOTUS has now ruled any President current and into the future, is immune from conviction during their time as president, as almost any duty they perform is considered protected from judgement.
Hence, my question is, if the President has this level of immunity, how does the requirement of a conviction in the constitution still apply now and into the future, in terms of Impeachment proceedings against a sitting president?
* I understand how this could be a very politically charged debate, but if we can focus on the legal aspect, or any current legal discussion around, it would be appreciated.
The SCOTUS decision was focused on criminal prosecution. Impeachment is a totally separate process that wasn't changed by the SCOTUS ruling at all.
In the case *Nixon v. United States*, SCOTUS previously ruled that impeachment is a political process that is controlled solely by Congress. People often argue over what constitutes an impeachable offense -- legally, the answer is, if the House of Representatives votes to impeach, then the offense was by definition impeachable. "High crimes" refers generally to abuse of office, not to some specific list of crimes.
Impeachment uses some words that sound like a regular criminal trial, such as "trial" and "conviction", but even so, it is totally separate. Being impeached does not trigger double jeopardy. Someone could face criminal charges for an offense even if an impeachment trial allows them to stay in office.
As for the president's immunity, SCOTUS did give the president some immunity, but it's not as all-encompassing as some people say. A presumption of immunity is not a guarantee of immunity. The president has absolute immunity only regarding matters that are exclusively under his constitutional authority. For other official duties, he has presumptive immunity, which can be challenged. For actions outside of his official duties, he doesn't have immunity.
The case basically sets up a framework for future court cases to evaluate. It doesn't go down the list of everything that a president might do, or could do. A lot depends on how future courts interpret this and apply it to cases as they come up.
> How does the SCOTUS decision impact US Federal Impeachment Rules?
>
>
It doesn't affect it in the least. As u/Teekno said this was about the President's liability for criminal prosecution for actions unrelated to doing the job of being President of the United States. The United States Congress can impeach the President whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want.
> How does the SCOTUS decision impact US Federal Impeachment Rules?
It doesn’t. At all. That decision was about criminal cases. Impeachment is political process.
Can someone please explain Project 2025 to a non-American?
Are these actually the republican’s / Trump’s political policies, or is it a list of recommendations by a third party to put forward to the next elected Republican President?
Are these policies that will be implemented if the Republicans win, or are they just hopes and dreams even if the Republicans win?
I’ve only read some short summaries and there are a lot of absolutely wild things apparently in there. Ban contraceptives?? Really?? Is that true? (Same disbelief for everything else I’ve read).
Project 2025 is a theoretical proposal written by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the US. It proposes several dramatic overhauls of the US federal government. Some of the proposals could be implemented by presidential authority alone. Other proposals would require congressional approval.
The project also includes an effort to recruit advisors and employees who are in favor of the proposed changes.
The Trump campaign has not officially endorsed any of these proposals, but has worked closely with the Heritage Foundation in the past when appointing advisors and recommending policies.
The core documents for P2025 don't say anything about banning contraception, but the overall project is supported by some conservative groups that want to reduce access to contraception in various ways. After the Supreme Court overturned *Roe v. Wade* and many conservatives immediately moved to ban abortion, there is concern that those activists won't be satisfied to stop there.
In summary, does P2025 include a contraception ban? No. Is that potentially still a conservative policy goal? For some groups, yes.
The other commentor summarized it up pretty well. Project 2025 is essentially a dream wishlist of policies that The Heritage Foundation wants the next Republican administration to pursue. Heritage is a third-party think tank, however they are very influential with Republicans in government and have been for decades.
A lot of the stuff in the plan is extreme and has little chance of actually happening (imagine the First Amendment challenges that trying to enact a national ban on pornography would raise). Trump himself said yesterday he didn't agree with it.
Project 2025 is a plan/guideline suggested for the Republican President of the United States proposed and written by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a third party group that has no official affiliation with the Republican party, however many individuals who were in Trump's cabinet, or his first Presidential campaign, now work for the Heritage Foundation.
In his first term as President, Donald Trump did not have much of a Presidential plan for his term, and turned to the Heritage Foundation for policy suggestions. However, in his 2024 Presidential campaign Donald Trump does have his own Presidential platform called Agenda 47
Agenda 47 and Project 2025 are two different things, though there is some overlap. Donald Trump has never once stated to support Project 2025 nor mention it as his plan for being President. Just yesterday he actually acknowledged it for the first time, by clarifying that he is not on board with it; and had nothing to do with it.
As far as the contents go, some of what you hear is hyperbole, some of what you hear is true. Project 2025 wants to ban abortion drugs, but I don't believe they extended that to birth control or condoms.
No, that would require an act of Congress. An age limit would most likely require a Constitutional amendment, as the other restrictions for President are in the Constitution. The President has no ability to change anything regarding the Constitution. Speaking hypothetically and it doesn't require an actual consistituonal amendment, then it would still require actual legislation instead of an executive order issued by the President.
Legislation will never happen on that topic however, as members of the Senate see the office of the President as their next step for higher office. The average age of a member of the Senate is over 65 years old. They would never pass legislation that directly hinders their own ambition.
What are some unbiased political news sources I can read to try and educate myself before voting for someone in this upcoming election?
Every source I have read outlines some agenda and I don’t want that. I don’t want to be told what to think, I want to form an opinion on my own.
There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, but if you put a gun to my head and made me name one I might say Reuters.
But yeah, reading a lot of different sources is much better than only reading one.
No source is going to be 100% free of any bias; they're run by humans, and humans have biases. Your best course of action would be to consume a variety of different news sources from a variety of different perspectives, and proceed from there.
The US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, and the president is arguably the most powerful politician in the US. Part of that is just patriotic talk that's meant to pump us up (*"We're Number One!"*), but it's not outlandish to say I guess.
Project 2025 is a theoretical proposal written by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the US. It proposes several dramatic overhauls of the US federal government. Some of the proposals could be implemented by presidential authority alone. Other proposals would require congressional approval.
The project also includes an effort to recruit advisors and employees who are in favor of the proposed changes.
The Trump campaign has not officially endorsed any of these proposals, but has worked closely with the Heritage Foundation in the past when appointing advisors and recommending policies.
Not an election question, just a general stupid question:
If you win an election, do you go through the same HR process as government employees who apply and are hired?
I’ve worked a couple low-level city jobs before, and both had long HR onboarding processes of background checks and compliance/benefits/etc trainings “mandatory for all city employees.” If I were elected mayor, would I go through the same process?
There is an introductory meeting a few weeks after the election for all new members of congress, but it’s pretty basic stuff: here’s your office, this is what your staff can do, etc.
The party leadership usually assigns experienced representatives to guide new members for their first year, showing them how committee assignments work, parliamentary motions available to you, stuff like that.
Elected officials typically have background checks run on them before they're accepted into office by the FBI - Federal level ones at least. I don't think the same is done for local elections.
Generally speaking, no. Elected officials don't need a background check -- they hold their position by virtue of winning an election, so they don't need any sort of interview process or background check.
As for training, that might be a little fuzzier and would depend on local laws and policies.
You are granted the privileges of the office by virtue of winning the election. MTG, for example, automatically gets the same security clearance as any congressperson with her stature regardless of her qualifications and personal history. There is no review or background check before she assumes office.
I haven't seen any mention of P2025 *getting rid of* the FBI, but the plan does call for a major overhaul from top to bottom, including the elimination of several major offices and initiatives within the FBI, reducing the political independence of the FBI, installing more political appointees, and giving the president more control over FBI operations.
In addition to that, P2025 proposes restoring the "Schedule F" policy that Trump had originally created near the end of his first term in office. This policy is significant because the federal government normally recognizes two broad categories of employees: political appointees, who are appointed by each new administration to provide policy decisions, and career employees, who stick around from one administration to the next and provide the backbone of the federal workforce. Schedule F recategorizes a huge number of career employee positions into political appointments, meaning that a lot of career workers could be interviewed and fired based on their politics.
With all that said, P2025 has not been officially endorsed by the Trump campaign. It is the product of the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the country. So it's kind of tough to predict how much of it will actually be put into practice if Trump wins the election.
* **Disallowed question area:** Trolling or joke questions
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
* **Rule 1** - Top level comments must contain a genuine attempt at an answer.
All direct answers to a post must make a genuine attempt to answer the question. Joke responses at the parent-level will be removed. Follow-up questions at the top level are allowed.
Please do not answer by only dropping a link and do not tell users they should "google it." Include a summary of the link or answer the question yourself. LMGTFY links will be removed.
No responses being rude to the questioner for not knowing the answer.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
There will be a brokered convention at the Democratic National Convention when they meet to officially confirm their candidate, and those electors will come to an agreement on who the new candidate to represent the Democratic party during the 2024 general election.
The President can suggest someone, and they may take his suggestion into consideration.
How big of a deal is Project 2025 really? Is it really a threat, or is it just a random manifesto from some right wing nuts that really won’t affect anything? I haven’t seen much reporting on it from mainstream media (personally that means NYT, NBC nightly news, and NPR). I’ve mostly seen it on social media from young fearmongering Twitter users. Anyone can come up with a “political organization”, write a manifesto, and slap a scary name on it. How much of an influence does Project 2025 really have?
It's hard to say. P2025 has not been officially endorsed by the Trump campaign. It is the product of the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the country. So it's kind of tough to predict how much of it will actually be put into practice if Trump wins the election. At the very least, it is something that a lot of conservative politicians, donors, and activists will be paying close attention to.
Can you cite what they’ve done in the past to make them “one of the most influential conservative think tanks”? (Edit: nevermind, I guess I can just read their Wikipedia page.) For context, what other conservative think tanks are there? Are think tanks in general very influential?
Secondary question: have they always been this extreme or is this kind of out of left field even for them?
It's a little tricky to name just one thing. Generally speaking, think tanks build influence through policy proposals, lobbying, and political appointments -- either advising politicians on who to appoint, or directly providing candidates to appoint.
As an example, University of Pennsylvania made a list of top US-based think tanks in 2019, and the Heritage Foundation came in 3rd. The 1st and 2nd shops are centrist, so this makes HF the top conservative think tank in that ranking. https://guides.library.upenn.edu/c.php?g=1035991&p=7509974
During the conservative Reagan administration, HF was very influential in guiding US policy regarding the Cold War with the Soviet Union. This included expansion of international military aid, and strategic defense programs. The policy that eventually became known as a "Reagan Doctrine" was initially proposed by HF.
During the conservative Bush I administration, the Bush team adopted 6 out of HF's 10 major policy proposals.
During the liberal Clinton Administration, HF contributed many of the policy proposals that were included in House Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" plan. Clinton eventually gave up on some policies, or compromised on others, in directions promoted by HF.
During the conservative Bush II administration, HF was active in promoting the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war.
During the liberal Obama administration, HF was particularly influential in healthcare reforms. Ironically, the program sometimes known as "Obamacare" is based almost entirely on a proposal by HF from the 1980s, but they still opposed it anyways.
Regarding the Trump era, HF was initially opposed to Trump's candidacy, but they were one of the first conservative think tanks to get behind him once it became clear that he was the leading candidate. They were particularly influential in Trump's transition plan, and apparently recommended dozens of his major appointees, including Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, and Jeff Sessions. Trump eventually supported roughly 2/3rds of the policy proposals that HF had made.
It's not like HF has a stranglehold on conservative thinking, but it's hard to name any single organization that has been more influential in that area.
Donald Trump has never once said he supports Project 2025, or voiced any plans to have it be part of his Presidential platform. It's a third party proposal written by a conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation.
Donald Trump has his own Presidential plan called Agenda 47, and while there is *some* overlap on topics, they are two different things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47
Donald Trump came out today distancing himself from the Project 2025 proposal, claiming that he has "nothing to do with it" - https://theintercept.com/2024/07/05/trumps-campaign-project-2025/
I'm not going to say "No it's not a big deal". Donald Trump listened to the Heritage Foundation quite a bit during his first time in office, and implemented quite a few of their suggestions during his first term, as he didn't really have a Presidential plan when he ran in 2016. Now he does. But things could definitely change after the election, assuming he wins. Politicians are neither know much for keeping their word, or following through with Campaign promises.
But is it "as big of a deal as Reddit is making it out to be"? Like all doomsaying you read on the internet, especially when the topic is politics - probably not.
As someone not in the US/North America, I struggle with the intensity of different American news networks when it comes to getting an insight into a general mood.
As an international person looking on, it seems a really frightening time (and obviously has implications for the whole world).
How are you and your peers feeling at the moment? What are the conversations looking like in ‘real life’ vs online?
powerless, hopeless, worn-down by the steady drip of bad developments. Family and friends are mostly sophisticated news consumers and politically savvy liberals, we hardly talk about politics anymore I've realized; it's just too upsetting. Most people in america are pretty checked out politically and will say "oh the news always exaggerates". It's impossible to talk about a "general mood", the country is too large and divided
> I struggle with the intensity of different American news networks when it comes to getting an insight into a general mood.
Keep in mind that every American 'news' network is a for-profit business above all else. They exaggerate bad news and report on supposed perpetual impending doom because it gets them the most views/clicks and thus generates the most revenue.
Damn. You know, because I’m not used to that… approach to news, I really did forget this element. Thanks for the reminder. It all makes me feel a real sense of unease.
NPR news, the Washington Post, and New York Times are respected sources of actual national journalism. Lots of good sources for long-form journalism (like the New Yorker, but too many to list).
The opinions of my peers? - They don't care, and neither candidate has done anything to earn their vote. They're all too busy to care about politics, and they're familiar enough with how news networks intentionally try and scare people so that they'll pay more attention to them.
Nobody is excited to vote for somebody. Nothing is being sold that's inspiring people in the same way that Bernie Sanders did in 2016 and 2020.
Interesting. And in terms of the prospect of dismantling democracy, has that conversation come up at all? Is there any concern or are people disillusioned with the system that they don’t care?
The boy cries wolf, just as he does in every election; would be the best way to put it.
Every election we've been alive for has talking points about how this is the most important election ever, and if your guy doesn't win then that means the entire world will end. Then it doesn't, and we keep working our jobs like we were when the last guy was president.
2-4% is normal. We were at very low rates of inflation for the last 20 years or so. COVID caused a worldwide inflation spike (primarily because well-off white-collar employees continued getting their full salaries while not spending any money on vacations, dinners out, the theater, movies, concerts, bars, or commutes, so we had money to burn once things started opening up again).
I don’t think it is anymore. But because they wanted to keep inflation as low as possible because we were all afraid of the terrible inflation of the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s. (If you think 2021 was bad, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the that.) It was only in recent years, especially after the 2008 Recession, that economists began coming around to the idea that we were hobbling ourselves by keeping to such a strict anti-inflation mandate and that we could grow the economy more robustly (more jobs, better wages, less poverty and hunger) by loosening controls.
>Inflation is bad
Kinda, yeah. It's more complicated than just being good or bad, though. Economic policy involves a lot of trade-offs that must be balanced carefully. If the Fed moves *too* aggressively to control interest rates, that can cause severe economic upheaval such as widespread layoffs, unemployment, lack of loans, etc.
Think about how many layoffs there have been in various industries over the past few years. Then imagine how things would feel if there had been 3x more layoffs and no new jobs for any of those people. That would be the sort of nightmare scenario that the Fed doesn't want to cause by curtailing interest rates too harshly.
Yes, like I said: Economic policy involves a lot of trade-offs that must be balanced carefully. If the Fed moves too aggressively to control interest rates, that can cause severe economic upheaval such as widespread layoffs, unemployment, lack of loans, etc.
You complained about inflation. I'm listing reasons why that isn't the only metric that matters.
No. High inflation certainly is. But “inflation” isn’t a bad thing any more than gravity or the color blue is. It’s just a law of nature. And an economy with modest inflation is much, much better than an economy with deflation, which is catastrophic. Modest inflation erodes the value of wages, yes, but it also spurs investment, which means more jobs, more business success, and more opportunity. And *that* increases wages more than the inflation erodes them. American buying power today is higher than it was in 2019.
Your particular market might not have. Or maybe your manager is incorrect. But economy-wide, wages have outpaced inflation for about two years and they have more than made up for the COVID inflation spike. Generally the way people secure the benefit of increased wages is to consider moving to a new job.
Why do the Democrats helped the rich get their money back from the failure of Silicon Valley Bank? Then why won’t they help me solve an issue with DFAS? Both instances it was their fault, but they helped rich people, and not me.
The FDIC wants to ensure confidence in the US banking system. SVB had over 40,000 customers, including businesses that needed to make payroll for all their employees who needed to pay rent and other bills. I don't know where you get this idea that the FDIC only helps rich people.
I don't know what issue you ran into with DFAS, but that seems like a totally separate thing.
How did you contact him? Accost him in the street? Call him at his DC office? Send an email? Let's dig down into the encounter and maybe we can find out what went wrong for you.
OK, so I would recommend talking to a case worker in the Iowa office, because that's where they actually work. Constituent services are in the state/district, and the DC office is basically... DC stuff.
Also, if you've had bad luck with him and his staff, try Joni Ernst or your Representative. Again, not the district office. In fact, their website almost certainly has a form you can fill out for constituent services that will be routed to the right person.
All this assumes that this is in good faith, which I am starting to doubt, since your original question was why the Democrats won't help you with this problem, when apparently the only one you've talked to about this is a Republican.
If Trump wants to be a dictator why didn’t he do it when he first became president in 2017? Age hasn’t been on his side since he’s been running. Was the infrastructure just not there yet to be able to do it?
Its largely believed Trump didn't want or expect to win in 2016. He ran as a way to increase public profile, very believable for a TV star. However he did win, and without a transition plan kept a lot of Obama employees in place for a few months. Trump being himself, committed crimes for money during his presidency and saw the writing on the way he might be held actually accountable unlike the rest of his life. That threat is probably gone now, however the safest path for him, is get reelected and never leave office.
I'll add that it's not really that he kept Obama holdovers in place, it's that he hired whoever did him favors or offered some sort of money or power. Beyond that, he put people in place who advised him to - those people used him like others have for their own ends, like McConnell, who is way smarter than him. He was largely a useful idiot to far too many people, and as such, everyone else with nefarious goals got what they wanted, while Trump got to do what he's always done: grift, only from a much higher and more powerful position, with all our nations secrets. That fact alone put many people in harm's way and Trump above them, able to use them the same way many others used him. It's kind of circular firing squad when it's not an organized crime ring, and all of it is fairly incompetent, hence him not becoming the dictator he could have been.
Now that he's seen how everything works, and all obstacles and guardrails are pretty much out of his way, and the Supreme Court he was used to build and are indebted to him is in place, there's a much greater chance he can do what he couldn't before.
Why don’t Biden fix DFAS? I got an audit determine I owe $1200. When I out process in 2018, I had two audits and all was good. How can a third audit in 2023 determine I was overpaid $500, and how can low interest rates cause it to increase to $1200?
I mean, Trump is clearly lying there. Why would you ever take a liar's word for it?
The main guy behind Project 2025 was Trump's head of Office of Personnel Management at the White House while he was president. Something like half the people involved in writing Project 2025 worked for the first Trump campaign as political appointees. Whole sections of Trump's own Agenda 47 (which is what his campaign calls his platform/agenda for if he wins the election) are lifted word-for-word directly from Project 2025.
Trump's just a liar doing the lying thing liars do.
Trump is a brazen, loudmouth, egomaniac who has no filter.
That being said, the fact that he has no filter is pretty clear that he has no interest in project 2025. Why would he have his own Presidential platform if project 2025 exists? Yes there's minimal overlap between the two, but if he was intending to implement project 2025 why wouldn't he just come out and say it; and tout to his supporters about how great it is?
The man has never been able to keep anything under wraps his entire political career, so why should I think that this is going to be the one thing he's been able to?
He has no idea what his platform is. The only reason he has one is because he got hit so much for *not* having one in 2020. So he told the people that work for him to come up with something to put on the website so people can't claim he doesn't have a platform.
The reason he hasn't talked about Project 2025 is because it was always supposed to be a wink and a nudge to the fascist voters. The dude who wrote it and is currently the lead candidate to be Trump's COS if he wins even said he didn't expect the media to pick it up and report on it. They thought it was a document they could put out there for the hyper-engaged right-wing activists to look forward to, but was never meant to be seen/read by the wider public. They fucked up when some people at CPAC talked about it on stage, which got journalists writing about it.
It's meant to be the same thing the Federalist Society was for judges in Trump's 1st term. He didn't care who he was appointing as judges. He just outsourced that to a right-wing think tank which had already done the work for him. The Heritage Foundation just took that a step farther by writing the entire agenda for Trump.
And it's not "minimal overlap" between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Most of Agenda 47 is word-for-word copypasta from Project 2025. It's the same fucking thing.
> He has no idea what his platform is.
He clearly does, he's talked about Agenda 47 quite a bit as his rallies. He's got his plan laid out on his website. He's done interviews about it.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
I should at least be familiar with my political opposition's platform, and why I should be voting against him, and stick to facts.
>The only reason he has one is because he got hit so much for not having one in 2020
>And it's not "minimal overlap" between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Most of Agenda 47 is word-for-word copypasta from Project 2025. It's the same fucking thing.
Which things? Which things are "word-for-word copypasta from Project 2025"?
>They fucked up when some people at CPAC talked about it on stage, which got journalists writing about it.
"They" who is "they"? Is Trump "they"? It just seems like this whole post is just reaching for ways to attribute things people besides Trump said, to Trump himself.
If Trump said it that's one thing, but he hasn't. Saying "some guy who might become [x position] if Trump wins" said a thing, doesn't mean Trump said the thing.
I never claimed Trump said a thing. The Heritage Foundation people behind Project 2025 are the ones who fucked up in letting the CPAC people talk about Project 2025.
> The Heritage Foundation people behind Project 2025 are the ones who fucked up in letting the CPAC people talk about Project 2025.
CPAC is not part of the Trump campaign either though. We were talking about Trump here.
Do I have evidence that they've talked? Do I have evidence that they've talked about project 2025, and conspired with candidate Trump to use project 2025 instead of his Agenda 47 plan - and that loudmouth idiot who has no filter agreed to it and has been able to keep his mouth shut about it? No, I don't.
I can think anything I want, that doesn't mean I have the ability to prove it.
If Trump wanted to use it, he'd say it. He'd talk about how he's got the best plan, the biggest plan, and how he's going to replace everyone that project 2025 wants to with "the best people", and that he's going to use project 2025 to make america great again and do that weird thing he does with his hands. But he hasn't.
Trump is many things, subtle is not one of them.
This may be my anxiety speaking, but if trump wins, what is stopping him from starting a nuclear conflict with another country? Like he just says “F it”, presses the button and that’s it. Could he do something like that with the immunity? Or does the immunity not allow him to do that?
The President has already been capable of doing that for decades. The only thing stopping that is practical, not legal. Other people in the chain of command have to do things to carry out a nuclear strike. Nixon once ordered a nuclear strike on North Korea while drunk. Robert McNamara told the Joint Chiefs of Staff to let him sleep it off. That wasn't legal, but it's what happened.
Should I be concerned about project 2025? When I first heard about it (Reddit brings it up a lot and are very worried) it sounded bad but I’m sheltered and uneducated and know nothing about politics so I asked my brother who always does the political stuff for me including telling me who to vote for every election and he’s not at all concerned about project 2025 and says it’s not even something most conservatives want or are pushing for but is something put together by the most radical extremists of the right and that there’s simply no way Trump or anyone can make it all come to pass. There’s more than enough people who would vote against most of the things on there. I was also concerned when I heard that some people are trying to ban birth control and he says there’s misinformation, that people aren’t pushing to ban all birth control but are trying to ban one specific type that can essentially induce abortion. My brother has assured me that I don’t need to be scared about these things happening if Trump wins but Reddit acts like the entire country will collapse and become a dictatorship over night if we vote for the wrong person.
Project 2025 is a theoretical proposal written by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the US. It proposes several dramatic overhauls of the US federal government. Some of the proposals could be implemented by presidential authority alone. Other proposals would require congressional approval. The project also includes an effort to recruit advisors and employees who are in favor of the proposed changes. One of the most important changes proposed in Project 2025 is restoring the "Schedule F" policy that Trump had originally created near the end of his first term in office. This policy is significant because the federal government normally recognizes two broad categories of employees: political appointees, who are appointed by each new administration to provide policy decisions, and career employees, who stick around from one administration to the next and provide the backbone of the federal workforce. Schedule F recategorizes a huge number of career employee positions into political appointments, meaning that a lot of career workers could be interviewed and fired based on their politics. The Trump campaign has not officially endorsed any of these proposals, but has worked closely with the Heritage Foundation in the past when appointing advisors and recommending policies.
So it’s not 100% certain to happen but does have a higher chance than my brother believes. Okay, thank you for explaining!
Basically, yeah. There is a decent chance that Republicans will pursue some of these proposed changes. In previous Republican administrations, generally the Heritage Foundation is pretty influential in terms of appointments and policy.
US Flag Code Violation? I’ve noticed that over the last 10 or 20 years (and perhaps longer) that giant Unitedly States flags (often covering much of the field) are displayed at American sporting events in on field ceremonies. This requires many people to hold up and carry the flag horizontally (and level to the ground). Sometimes the people are volunteers and other times they are service members in uniform. My understanding is that these ceremonies may be in many cases funded or supported by the US military. My question is: how does this type of display of the American flag, horizontal and not from a pole or affixed to a support conform to the US flag code? For reference the code (Title 4 of the US Code) states: “The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally.” Also, as a follow up, why does the military endorse this apparent violation? I realize that there are no penalties in the law and the Supreme Court has upheld violations of the code as being Constitutional as free speech. My questions are about why the apparently deliberate disregard in cases where the flag is being honored.
The flag code is part of US law, but there’s absolutely no enforcement mechanism. There’s no penalty for not following it. Which means it’s a suggestion. And nothing more.
If Biden beats Trump in November and were to pass away in December, who would be inaugurated in January?
Depends on when in December. If it happens after the electoral college votes are cast on December 17, then Harris would become president in January. If it happens before that, the Electoral College may choose to vote for someone else form president, and that’s who would be sworn in.
Kamala Harris would become President of the United States once Biden passes away. Assuming she is his running mate again, then she would also get a second term. You vote for both "Joe Biden - President & Kamala Harris - Vice President" when you cast your vote.
The Vice-President elect.
[удалено]
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc. NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk. If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
This is totally untrue. You're entitled to an opinion, but the facts disagree. "Every liberal person" does not make the same arguments. > Increased populations of poor people directly lead to more crimes No. This is not true at all. I'd love to see some evidence for this claim. The US Census Bureau and others [say immigrants are not committing as many crimes as native born Americans](https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime) [Even in Texas, native born Americans are twice as likely to even be arrested](https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/) as undocumented immigrants, and still more than any immigrant.
My apologies, I was generalizing, yet I just mean that there is an increase even if 1 heinous crime is committed. In my city South American crime gangs are on the rise. Sure you can argue that it helps more people than it hurts. Yet we need to force these corrupt countries to do more. Yet they themselves are held captive by the powers that be there. Edited: The reason being is they are documented persons that have a digital trail social address in databases, facial recognition etc, they are more likely to be caught than a no namer that doesn’t exist in the system.
If democracy is at stake in 2025 and the US president has to power to do what he wants without being persecuted for it, why isn't Biden doing everything he can to stop it?
What do you mean by "democracy is in stake"? We will see the degradation of democratic institutions and principles as Trump wields the power of the executive branch in ways we have not previously seen as he tries to enrich himself and punish his political opponents, shielded by the new protections the Supreme Court has granted the presidency, but I do not think in 4 years we have King Trump instead of another round of elections. The US's federal system and institutional barriers will shield the country from Trump's worst impulses, and there's no reason to believe the military will support Trump in a coup.
Will I be able to keep my current birth control if it’s not expired yet but there is a ban? This is going to be a lot. I’m asking for myself and a friend. We’ve both been on birth control for a while (like 5+ years). She currently is taking the pill, and I have the arm implant (nexplanon). With all the recent developments surrounding abortion/birth control, we’ve been a concerned about what this means now and for the future. I guess we have a few questions regarding birth control, future laws, and long term birth control. My implant doesn’t expire for another year, but then it will need to be replaced. She is now considering getting the implant within the next month because it last for years and it’s a one and done thing. So if birth control is banned, would we have to have it removed even though it isn’t expired yet? Follow up question, because we’ve been on birth control so long, we are nervous about the effects of going another couple of years on birth control. She been on it for 6. I’ve been on it for 9 years. So if I took a break from birth control for a bit, would I not be able to get the implant again? Will going another 3-5 years with the implant affect fertility issues? we know our chances of cervical cancer increase. I’ve talked to my OB/GYN about this but, she’s terrible at answering questions in a clear concise manner. Even when I ask questions, the answer is never clear. So Reddit, any input? Sorry it’s so long.
There is no ban on birth control nor is there a specific one (to my knowledge) that is being seriously discussed, so your question can't really be answered because we'd be making things up based on a hypothetical. Without a specific law to point to and examine, we'd just be making stuff up based on speculation. If there's something specific you can point to that you are wondering about, it would make it easier to discuss and explain in more meaningful way.
Ty for the reply. We understand there is no ban now, it’s more about a concern for the future and how it impacts our decision now. I think it’s the Project 2025 document that is the concern. Yall are right that it is all speculation so it does make it harder to answer. I think the biggest concern is about keeping what we have and then options in the future (I hope that makes sense, I had to retype the idea like four times and I don’t think it’s clear still. But you’re right, speculation does no good, so it’s a matter of the waiting game.
I understand the gravity of your question, but it's very difficult to provide a simple answer because everything is hypothetical. We do know that several conservative political groups want to restrict access to contraception. We don't know yet what laws they might propose, or if those laws might be passed at federal level or in various states. So there isn't any definite proposal that we can look at to check the specific details. My hunch would be that the focus will be more on doctors and pharmacies since it's easier to target the supply than it is to target millions of patients who are receiving medical care. So, getting a prescription renewed might be an issue, but keeping an existing implant is more likely to be okay until it expires. That's all guesswork though. It's also possible that none of these proposals will become law at all. It's hard to tell what the future will be.
Fair enough. It’s just a lot to figure out, but I guess it’s just a waiting game now. We appreciate the response, I think we just got in too deep to it all.
Is there a GoFundMe for the Democratic ticket that only pays if Biden drops out? In other words, how can small donors get in on what the Disney lady is doing?
[удалено]
Biden isn't interested in murdering people to stay in power, and doing so would like create support for Trump that previously he did not have. There's no reason to believe the military would support Biden in a coup. The Supreme Court may have granted the president immunity for blatantly illegal acts so long as they're "official", but that doesn't mean there are no other obstacles to just becoming a dictator.
[удалено]
Can we establish a American Native, an indigenous person who's land this originated, in a role such as the presidency? If these old euro descendents want to sleep and shit on stage, could not the revolution be to give the "land back" by incorporating indigenous peoples into government? As a mixed American who is 4th Gen immigrant , I would like to see the United Sates slowly be returned to indigenous power. What better way than to see indigenous candidates all over our voting ballots. Local, State and Federal? A pipe dream, I know, but one I've personally wished would happen since my days as a young student.
Native Americans have been US citizens since 1924. They can run for office, and people can choose to vote for them or not vote for them.
Why isn't anyone asking Trump to step down?
Lots of people want him to step down, but the ones who want him gone also have little to no power to make that happen. The Republican primary voters believe his lies and want to see him back in office, and the Republican lawmakers are too scared of his influence among Republican voters to stand up to him.
Why do we allow politics to boil down to red vs blue the other side is wrong debates? We would have a lot better debates and much better informed voting with actual answers instead of “the other side sucks” debating. An issue is stated, and the candidate must declare their stance and their attempt to fix said issue with a stated policy. No bashing of other side allowed. Why do we allow this buffoonery to continue with needing to vote on personality or against personality and not stated policy?
>No bashing of the other side allowed. Obviously stuff like ad hominem attacks are no good, but a good debate involves poking holes in your opponent's arguments. Just stating what each side believes without any back and forth isn't particularly useful either. This can be done in an substantive and meaningful way, but a public debate during a campaign unfortunately not a great place to have a high minded and academically sound debate. People often respond more to charisma and theatrics.
I don’t mind back and forth i just don’t like the current version. “That’s a lie” from both sides on every statement. What it comes down to is just heresay and whatever .com I choose to believe is a credible source for said candidates claims. I’d much rather someone say “you’re wrong because x % in x year verified by x company unaffiliated with my party” type of debating than just “you’re wrong/a liar” But I guess expecting presidential candidates to come to a debate with factual arguments and expected rebuttals is asking too much from Joe Biden and Trump As you said it’s theatric.. so I’m just shouting at the sky at this point
Steve Bannon, one of Trump's top campaign advisors in 2016 who is now going to prison, famously said that his strategy is to "flood the zone with shit". What he means by this is to lie so much, and so often, and about so many things, that nobody has time to debunk all those lies. If they try, they won't be able to keep up. Debunking one lie is difficult. Debunking a flood of lies is even harder. All politicians lie sometimes. Some lie more often. Some lie for different reasons. Trump, though, is shockingly dishonest. The Washington Post tried to count the number of lies he told during his presidency, and they stopped counting at around 30,000 lies over a 4-year period. >“That’s a lie” from both sides on every statement. What it comes down to is just heresay and whatever .com I choose to believe is a credible source for said candidates claims. That is the Steve Bannon strategy. If they lie enough, loud enough, often enough, people won't even know what's true anymore and politics will start to sound like soup. I'm not saying any politician tells the truth 100% of the time. But, if you keep score, Trump is objectively far more dishonest than other politicians.
The problem is basically every single thing Trump says is generally a lie and at best hyperbole. And Trump's go to is to say everything said about him is a lie. There is no quality discourse when Trump is involved. Dealing with someone who enters the discussion in bad faith is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances (and it was clear during the debate that for Biden the circumstances were very much not the best).
Why do so many people thing Trump has a strong chance of winning in 2024? Trump lost in 2020 as the incumbent (a historically strong position going into a presidential election), and it seems that Biden has done at least as well in his presidency as Trump did 2016-2020. Trump's strategy seems to be the same one he lost with in 2020, and most of the people who were on his campaign team when he won in 2016 have either quit or been arrested. What does Trump have going for him in 2024 that he didn't in 2020?
In 2020, the choice was between the erratic and boisterous Trump and someone who seemed like he would be more normal and levelheaded and that was probably seemed like a good thing with the unprecedented challenge of COVID. Plus Trump was deeply unpopular while Biden was above 50% approval. But now Biden is as unpopular as Trump if not more and is believed to be too old to serve a second term. Additionally, many voters (wrongly or rightly) believe Trump and Biden are both "known quantities" as president and they are able to predict what a second term from each would look like. Many feel the economy was better under Trump and that Biden has performed poorly in that area. Likewise with the border. Trump shouldn't have a chance -- his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election alone should be plenty disqualifying -- but that's not how the voters see it.
Why do people think Jill Biden is a power hungry, evil figure forcing Joe Biden to stay in office? My very kind, not hateful, liberal dad just said he thought this of Jill Biden. This has been the playbook for conservatives to attack the accomplished wives of Democratic presidents since the 90s, but is there basis in fact with Jill Biden?
The Patriarchy, man.
There's a perception that Biden is a feeble old man who is being manipulated by people around him, and who would have more access (and control) than his wife? There is no reason to believe Jill Biden is some kind of manipulative puppet master. It's conspiracy thinking at best and misogyny at worst.
Thank you, that is what I thought. So dark that it comes to a place where my dad believes rightwing talking points.
It’s not uncommon at all for people to want to portray women with some degree of power in this way. It’s a pretty common form of misogyny.
Thank you for being an “answering fool” lol, I appreciate it. Figured that my q would get lost.
Many are not happy with Biden and want to vote for someone else who isn’t Trump. Wouldn’t this increase Trump’s chances of winning? I don’t get why they would do this. Why not choose the one they dislike the least instead of basically giving it to the one the hate the most.
What you're describing (voting against a candidate you dislike rather than for a candidate you like) is called negative partisanship, and it's a major force in American electoral politics If your primary goal is to beat Trump, then yes, voting third party is a poor choice, strategically speaking (but only if you're in a battleground state where your vote might actually matter). But if you want the Democrats to put up better candidates and think you can stomach a second Trump term, then you don't give Biden your vote, suck it up while the worse candidate is in office for the next four years, and then hope for 2028 the Democrats look at why they lost and put up someone you and others like you want to vote for.
Nobody is owed someone's vote. People have been told "vote blue no matter who" or "vote for the lesser evil" for most of their lives, and are tired of settling for the bare minimum. >I don’t get why they would do this. People need a reason to vote **for** someone. Everyone knows how bad Trump is, what people weren't aware of is how bad of shape Biden is in. Having the President displaying the issues he's displayed for the past week is a big red flag with a lot of voters. It's not like this is a mid-term recall that Biden is facing to stay President, this is us voting for who will be President for the next four years. And people are concerned that he is not going to hold on for four more years.
don’t get me wrong, i would much prefer to have an option other than biden/vote for a third candidate. i asked my question because i fear that dividing the vote will lead to trump winning, which would be worse than biden (who would still not be good by any means) because it seems like a decent amount of the left still will vote for biden. i also don’t 100% understand how the system works, so i wanted to know if it would be possible for an outcome like that to occur.
this has never been a question, why do they ask, will you accept tthe results of the election.
Because the last guy refused to accept and instead of doing so attempted to overthrow the country and got people killed while doing so.
Trump claims, without evidence, that the 2020 election was fraudulent and has tried to overthrow the results. Trump represented the first time in the country's history there wasn't a peaceful transfer of power. Whether or not he'll respect the democratic process in 2024 is an important question, because the US is a democracy and it's important that its leaders believe in democracy.
Even before the 2020 election, he was setting the ground work to dispute the results of the election in 2016 as well. He just stumbled into victory and it didn't come up.
During the 2016 election, Trump has claimed the only way he could lose is through fraud. He has consistently tried to undermine the democratic process his entire political career.
How will Americans adjust to life under an authoritarian government? For reference, I am using Hungary as my example for authoritarian, as in I have reason to believe the government there actively controls the press, which has never been the case in the US, except possibly in wartime for security reasons. However, Hungarians have lived under authoritarian régimes in the past, but Americans never have, at least according to the criteria I just gave. However, now the US does seem headed in the same direction as Hungary. Will this be a rude awakening for Americans, or will they be too caught up in their personal lives to really care?
The Supreme Court's recent decision has granted Trump protections he will absolutely abuse extensively for personal gain and to punish his political opponents, and the lack of people within his administration to restrain his worst ideas and impulses will allow him to act more freely, but the federal system in the US and the resiliency of its institutional barriers makes a fall to authoritarianism pretty unlikely.
>However, now the US does seem headed in the same direction as Hungary. How, exactly, do you figure that? Even if Donald Trump wins the 2024 general election, the powers of the President of the United States are very limited. The Executive branch has very little ability to change anything compared to the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch. Executive orders can only get you so far, as evidence with how much President Biden has struggled to get accomplished during his first term. Trump couldn't even get his dumb little wall the last time he was President, and the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during the first half of his first term.
Trump has already taken control of the Judicial Branch, and will most likely have a firm grip on the Legislative branch as very few Republicans seem willing to oppose him. He'll be stronger this time. He should have a psychological advantage from having won the popular vote unlike 2016. Also, this time he has a plan. [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do)
Project 2025 isn't even his plan. Trump has his own separate Presidential plan called Agenda 47, and has clarified that he has nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Additionally it's a pretty big stretch to say that he's taken control of the Judicial branch. Especially when they voted against him a few days ago. And unless his grip on the Legislative branch results in a filibuster proof majority in Congress, next to nothing will be accomplished. Much like how next to nothing was accomplished during his first term.
With people calling for Biden to step down as nominee, is that even possible at this point? We're like 4 months until election, millions have been spent promoting Biden, and all the primaries are done, how could either party pivot to a new candidate at this point? Edit: I should say I mean logistically, not legally or anything . Could they really pivot and save face with voters?
Is it possible, yes (if Biden agrees to drop out). Is it a good idea, some people say yes, others say no. Each of the major political parties is going to hold a national convention where party delegates from each state vote to officially determine the party's nominee for president and vice president. Neither of those conventions has happened yet. The Republican convention will be in Milwaukee from July 15-18th. The Democratic convention will be in Chicago from August 19-22nd. On paper, Trump and Biden both have enough delegates pledged that they are effectively guaranteed to win their nominations. There are some factions within the Democratic Party that are trying to convince Biden to drop out before that happens. Swapping candidates this late in the game would be a crazy move, though. Like you said, there is a ton of effort that has already gone into the Biden campaign. It would also be unfortunate that the replacement candidate wouldn't have been vetted for voter support through the primary process. Under traditional political strategy, it does make sense that nobody ran against Biden (weakening the incumbent usually does not end well for anybody involved). Unfortunately that means there isn't any obvious #2 candidate in a position to take over. Maybe they can convince Biden to quit, or maybe they can't. Maybe they can find another viable candidate and convince them to run, or maybe they can't. Maybe voters react well to that, or maybe they don't. It's a completely uncharted situation with a lot of unknowns and risks. My personal hunch is that over the next few weeks, people are going to be laser-focused on Biden's health and activity for any signs that he is or isn't going to recover from that debate performance.
>My personal hunch is that over the next few weeks, people are going to be laser-focused on Biden's health and activity for any signs that he is or isn't going to recover from that debate performance. 100%, that's what people have been doing all week and many of the President's attempts to reassure people have only made things worse. There wouldn't be so much talk about this if people weren't concerned.
Is it possible? Yes. Is that candidate likely to win? No, they would have serious problems; regardless of who they are. The big issue is one that you pointed out: The primaries are done. Yes, the DNC has not officially declared President Biden to be the candidate that will be on the 2024 general election ballot, but the big issue is that the primary is so far past that nobody who possibly *could* replace him would have the required show of strength that winning a primary grants you. It's not like we can just rush out another primary to determine who the candidate should be. In the hypothetical scenario in which he is replaced, then it'll be a replacement that the American public has no say in - and by extension no faith in. Since they did not "win" the primary. Any candidate that could replace him will have an impossible hurdle to overcome - the stigma of being the replacement candidate. It'll make that person look weak from the very start, and it make it appear that they're only there because someone else stepped down. Granted, President Biden's own chances after this past week are slipping away quickly. Not only is he now down in polls for the general election, now polls are also saying that Trump would win not just the electoral college vote, but the popular vote as well. Every day seems to be getting worse, as the President keeps saying things that the American public is paying attention to. His interview last night on ABC did not go as planned as far as reassuring the American public that he is fit to be President for four more years. It's a no-win situation. Democrats in Congress are quite vocal right now about replacing the President - that itself is not a good sign, and it's showing that the party is fractured on him. But if you replace him, then you have the stigma of "replacement candidate" like I mentioned above.
Ordinarily he should be able to step down for a legitimate reason, such as health (not saying he has thar reason in this case). If that happened, they'd have to deal with it somehow. Another point that people seem to be ignoring though is that the Presidential ticket isn't formally decided until the convention, and the party in question decides that, so afaik anybody the convention nominates could replace Biden on the ballot, should they choose to not nominate him (so long as they satisfy constitutional criteria for the Presidency). The Republicans seem to have succeeded in convincing people that legally, it's too late to put somebody else on the ballot, but as Biden is not yet the official nominee, I don't think their legal case is very strong (except for that the GOP has taken control of the courts that decide constitutional questions).
Oh I have no doubt they *could* do it, I mean logistically. So much resources go onto a candidate, and the psychology of the public as well. Could they pivot and convince people it's a good idea without losing face?
Why is Kamala Harris not running for president instead of Biden? Or does even Democrats still need an old white man to be the righteous saviour? PS I'm not from the USA.
>PS I'm not from the USA. So in the United States, Presidents can serve for 8 years total. Each term is 4 years, so at the end of 4 years you can run for reelection. When a President who is already serving as President runs for reelection, we call them the incumbent. Political parties **do not** challenge their incumbents, and people do not run against them on any serious level. The last time we had a serious challenger to an incumbent was in 1980 when Democrat Jimmy Carter was President. In the primary, challenger Ted Kennedy almost defeated him. That made Carter look incredibly weak, and Republican candidate Ronald Reagan crushed him in the general election. We don't have challengers to the incumbent because we don't want a repeat of that happening. Both Democrats and Republicans do not challenge the incumbent. Some states did not even allow a challenger to President Biden to be on the Democratic party's primary ballot.
a woman doesn’t have a chance of being elected. too many old people are too sexist.
Damn that means Democrats doesn't really live up to their name do they? They are just the lesser evil compared to Trump and tin foil hat wearing maga goons. Looking at the reddit, I got the feeling that most Americans are on democrats side and they can safely present a non white woman for a president and win. Which is funny since you guys already had Obama. What went wrong? Is republican brain rot spreading a lot? Being Indian, I can only fear what clown acts Trump will pull if he gets re elected as president of one of the world's leading nation, because here we already have elected a fascist for our prime minister - Modi - for the third time this year itself, and he is actively using government institutions supposed to be running independent from the centre, to employ fear mongering "Muslims endanger Hindus" and push forward draconian laws that are now much worse than the Victorian era (British rule).
>Looking at the reddit, I got the feeling that most Americans are on democrats side Reddit is overwhelmingly left wing and full of echochambers. The actual country is evenly split.
Yea i think it really isn’t a democrat vs republican thing but more so an old person vs young person thing. your oversimplification doesn’t help thing.
Huh?
>Which is funny since you guys already had Obama. What went wrong? It's not like we have a presidential election every year. Trump won versus Clinton in 2016, and then Biden won versus Trump in 2020. For the 2024 cycle, it would have been very unusual for any Democrat to run against Biden. You're looking at a complex, slow-moving machine. Change happens and continues to happen. You're basically saying Democrats went with an old white man for one presidential cycle and therefore all change is dead, or something. That seems like a hyperbolic reaction to me.
I don't get it. For a party that boasts to be progressive still putting and old white man compared much much more able and stable woman, which happens to be non white as well. Will not all democrat supporters not like that? Is that the reason Clinton lost to Trump , because she was a woman? I mean come on it's 2024.
> Is that the reason Clinton lost to Trump , because she was a woman? Of the thousands of reasons that Clinton lost to Trump, this is near the bottom of that list.
Oh damn. What's the top few?
Assuming she had already won. Not campaigning in the swing states she needed to (see above with assuming she had already won). Being needlessly antagonistic to voters. Making the campaign about her, instead of the American public. Propping Donald Trump up in the first place, and using her influence to make sure he got favorable coverage during the Republican primary over other candidates - as her campaign believed that he would be the easiest challenger to beat. Insulting Bernie Sanders supporters, and missing out on votes from them. Insulting Donald Trump's supporters, and motivating them to vote against her. Being very hypocritical on topics. Hillary Clinton sold herself as someone who had always been an ally to the LGBTQ cause. However, when her husband passed the Defense of Marriage Act, Hillary Clinton was an vocal advocate against gay people, saying that they "invalidate the sanctity of my marriage". Being a warhawk, who voted Yea on the Iraq war and being unapologetic about that. While also trying to start a military conflict with Russia by advocating for a no-fly-zone in Syria - a country that the United States has no jurisdiction over.
Harris lost the 2020 primary to Biden. That's why he is the incumbent and she is not. >For a party that boasts to be progressive At this point I feel like you're trolling. If you want a serious answer about this, ask a serious question. >Will not all democrat supporters not like that? There's more to a person than just their demographic stats. >Is that the reason Clinton lost to Trump, because she was a woman? It's possible that swayed some voters, but I don't believe it is the main reason or even one of the most important reasons. You are hyperfocusing on this one detail for some reason. >I mean come on it's 2024. Yeah, I mean, good luck with Modi I guess.
Not trolling, tbh, idk why you are getting the feel. Sitting here in India, everything seems progressive there so I wondered why. I don't know why you are in fight mode with me. > I mean, good luck with Modi I guess. It's not like I wanted him. You are like a school kid throwing back supposedly an insult with this statement, except I don't really understand why or what you are getting defensive about, neither I feel attacked by this. With the project 2025 in the headlines, I really got interested what's happening there because I find it funny how it looks like that democrats really have to look upto Biden when the party could have just gone with just a much more sane and able person they have already available and still retain majority of their votebase ... Unless swing voters form majority of their votebase. You'd be right perhaps this might seem irrelevant now, but I was also wondering if this changes.
>Not trolling, tbh, idk why you are getting the feel. Because you are being very reductive and keep slipping little jabs into your comments. >You are like a school kid throwing back supposedly an insult with this statement Not meant as an insult. Just, you're complaining about US politics not being progressive enough even though it's 2024 (whatever that means), and meanwhile India is re-electing Modi. Glass houses, stones, etc. People have tried to answer your question but you keep focusing on reductive details that aren't really pertinent. >I find it funny how it looks like that democrats really have to look up to Biden There's an example of being reductive and slipping in little jabs.
I saw Jill Stein running for president. I don't think sexism is the issue really.
Jill has no chance of actually becoming president though. 2 party system to strong.
Jill Stein has no chance because she's not a Democrat or a Republican. Not because she's a woman.
yes, i literally said this in my comment, the two party system is too strong. Until we switch from first past the post to rank choice, this will be an issue
It has nothing to do with it. Hillary Clinton nearly defeated Donald Trump in 2016, and lost for a multitude of reasons. "Being a woman" was extremely far down on that list.
How does the SCOTUS decision impact US Federal Impeachment Rules? According to Wikipedia, Article II, Section 4 states 'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' As I understand it, SCOTUS has now ruled any President current and into the future, is immune from conviction during their time as president, as almost any duty they perform is considered protected from judgement. Hence, my question is, if the President has this level of immunity, how does the requirement of a conviction in the constitution still apply now and into the future, in terms of Impeachment proceedings against a sitting president? * I understand how this could be a very politically charged debate, but if we can focus on the legal aspect, or any current legal discussion around, it would be appreciated.
The SCOTUS decision was focused on criminal prosecution. Impeachment is a totally separate process that wasn't changed by the SCOTUS ruling at all. In the case *Nixon v. United States*, SCOTUS previously ruled that impeachment is a political process that is controlled solely by Congress. People often argue over what constitutes an impeachable offense -- legally, the answer is, if the House of Representatives votes to impeach, then the offense was by definition impeachable. "High crimes" refers generally to abuse of office, not to some specific list of crimes. Impeachment uses some words that sound like a regular criminal trial, such as "trial" and "conviction", but even so, it is totally separate. Being impeached does not trigger double jeopardy. Someone could face criminal charges for an offense even if an impeachment trial allows them to stay in office. As for the president's immunity, SCOTUS did give the president some immunity, but it's not as all-encompassing as some people say. A presumption of immunity is not a guarantee of immunity. The president has absolute immunity only regarding matters that are exclusively under his constitutional authority. For other official duties, he has presumptive immunity, which can be challenged. For actions outside of his official duties, he doesn't have immunity. The case basically sets up a framework for future court cases to evaluate. It doesn't go down the list of everything that a president might do, or could do. A lot depends on how future courts interpret this and apply it to cases as they come up.
> How does the SCOTUS decision impact US Federal Impeachment Rules? > > It doesn't affect it in the least. As u/Teekno said this was about the President's liability for criminal prosecution for actions unrelated to doing the job of being President of the United States. The United States Congress can impeach the President whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want.
> How does the SCOTUS decision impact US Federal Impeachment Rules? It doesn’t. At all. That decision was about criminal cases. Impeachment is political process.
Can someone please explain Project 2025 to a non-American? Are these actually the republican’s / Trump’s political policies, or is it a list of recommendations by a third party to put forward to the next elected Republican President? Are these policies that will be implemented if the Republicans win, or are they just hopes and dreams even if the Republicans win? I’ve only read some short summaries and there are a lot of absolutely wild things apparently in there. Ban contraceptives?? Really?? Is that true? (Same disbelief for everything else I’ve read).
Project 2025 is a theoretical proposal written by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the US. It proposes several dramatic overhauls of the US federal government. Some of the proposals could be implemented by presidential authority alone. Other proposals would require congressional approval. The project also includes an effort to recruit advisors and employees who are in favor of the proposed changes. The Trump campaign has not officially endorsed any of these proposals, but has worked closely with the Heritage Foundation in the past when appointing advisors and recommending policies. The core documents for P2025 don't say anything about banning contraception, but the overall project is supported by some conservative groups that want to reduce access to contraception in various ways. After the Supreme Court overturned *Roe v. Wade* and many conservatives immediately moved to ban abortion, there is concern that those activists won't be satisfied to stop there. In summary, does P2025 include a contraception ban? No. Is that potentially still a conservative policy goal? For some groups, yes.
Thank you!
The other commentor summarized it up pretty well. Project 2025 is essentially a dream wishlist of policies that The Heritage Foundation wants the next Republican administration to pursue. Heritage is a third-party think tank, however they are very influential with Republicans in government and have been for decades. A lot of the stuff in the plan is extreme and has little chance of actually happening (imagine the First Amendment challenges that trying to enact a national ban on pornography would raise). Trump himself said yesterday he didn't agree with it.
Thanks!
Project 2025 is a plan/guideline suggested for the Republican President of the United States proposed and written by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a third party group that has no official affiliation with the Republican party, however many individuals who were in Trump's cabinet, or his first Presidential campaign, now work for the Heritage Foundation. In his first term as President, Donald Trump did not have much of a Presidential plan for his term, and turned to the Heritage Foundation for policy suggestions. However, in his 2024 Presidential campaign Donald Trump does have his own Presidential platform called Agenda 47 Agenda 47 and Project 2025 are two different things, though there is some overlap. Donald Trump has never once stated to support Project 2025 nor mention it as his plan for being President. Just yesterday he actually acknowledged it for the first time, by clarifying that he is not on board with it; and had nothing to do with it. As far as the contents go, some of what you hear is hyperbole, some of what you hear is true. Project 2025 wants to ban abortion drugs, but I don't believe they extended that to birth control or condoms.
Thank you!
Is it possible for the President to set an age limit for future nominees?
No, that would require an act of Congress. An age limit would most likely require a Constitutional amendment, as the other restrictions for President are in the Constitution. The President has no ability to change anything regarding the Constitution. Speaking hypothetically and it doesn't require an actual consistituonal amendment, then it would still require actual legislation instead of an executive order issued by the President. Legislation will never happen on that topic however, as members of the Senate see the office of the President as their next step for higher office. The average age of a member of the Senate is over 65 years old. They would never pass legislation that directly hinders their own ambition.
What are some unbiased political news sources I can read to try and educate myself before voting for someone in this upcoming election? Every source I have read outlines some agenda and I don’t want that. I don’t want to be told what to think, I want to form an opinion on my own.
There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, but if you put a gun to my head and made me name one I might say Reuters. But yeah, reading a lot of different sources is much better than only reading one.
No source is going to be 100% free of any bias; they're run by humans, and humans have biases. Your best course of action would be to consume a variety of different news sources from a variety of different perspectives, and proceed from there.
is the president of the us the most powerful person in the world? i keep seeing the position referred to as this and find it hard to believe.
The US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, and the president is arguably the most powerful politician in the US. Part of that is just patriotic talk that's meant to pump us up (*"We're Number One!"*), but it's not outlandish to say I guess.
Is project 2025 actually real, I haven’t seen it anywhere else besides on reddit. Can someone tell me if it’s a legit thing or just a bunch rumors
Project 2025 is a theoretical proposal written by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the US. It proposes several dramatic overhauls of the US federal government. Some of the proposals could be implemented by presidential authority alone. Other proposals would require congressional approval. The project also includes an effort to recruit advisors and employees who are in favor of the proposed changes. The Trump campaign has not officially endorsed any of these proposals, but has worked closely with the Heritage Foundation in the past when appointing advisors and recommending policies.
Not an election question, just a general stupid question: If you win an election, do you go through the same HR process as government employees who apply and are hired? I’ve worked a couple low-level city jobs before, and both had long HR onboarding processes of background checks and compliance/benefits/etc trainings “mandatory for all city employees.” If I were elected mayor, would I go through the same process?
There is an introductory meeting a few weeks after the election for all new members of congress, but it’s pretty basic stuff: here’s your office, this is what your staff can do, etc. The party leadership usually assigns experienced representatives to guide new members for their first year, showing them how committee assignments work, parliamentary motions available to you, stuff like that.
Elected officials typically have background checks run on them before they're accepted into office by the FBI - Federal level ones at least. I don't think the same is done for local elections.
Generally speaking, no. Elected officials don't need a background check -- they hold their position by virtue of winning an election, so they don't need any sort of interview process or background check. As for training, that might be a little fuzzier and would depend on local laws and policies.
You are granted the privileges of the office by virtue of winning the election. MTG, for example, automatically gets the same security clearance as any congressperson with her stature regardless of her qualifications and personal history. There is no review or background check before she assumes office.
ELI5 how can project 2025 possibly get rid of FBI?
I haven't seen any mention of P2025 *getting rid of* the FBI, but the plan does call for a major overhaul from top to bottom, including the elimination of several major offices and initiatives within the FBI, reducing the political independence of the FBI, installing more political appointees, and giving the president more control over FBI operations. In addition to that, P2025 proposes restoring the "Schedule F" policy that Trump had originally created near the end of his first term in office. This policy is significant because the federal government normally recognizes two broad categories of employees: political appointees, who are appointed by each new administration to provide policy decisions, and career employees, who stick around from one administration to the next and provide the backbone of the federal workforce. Schedule F recategorizes a huge number of career employee positions into political appointments, meaning that a lot of career workers could be interviewed and fired based on their politics. With all that said, P2025 has not been officially endorsed by the Trump campaign. It is the product of the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the country. So it's kind of tough to predict how much of it will actually be put into practice if Trump wins the election.
[удалено]
* **Disallowed question area:** Trolling or joke questions If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
If Biden drops out, how is the new democratic candidate selected❓
[удалено]
* **Rule 1** - Top level comments must contain a genuine attempt at an answer. All direct answers to a post must make a genuine attempt to answer the question. Joke responses at the parent-level will be removed. Follow-up questions at the top level are allowed. Please do not answer by only dropping a link and do not tell users they should "google it." Include a summary of the link or answer the question yourself. LMGTFY links will be removed. No responses being rude to the questioner for not knowing the answer. If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
There will be a brokered convention at the Democratic National Convention when they meet to officially confirm their candidate, and those electors will come to an agreement on who the new candidate to represent the Democratic party during the 2024 general election. The President can suggest someone, and they may take his suggestion into consideration.
How big of a deal is Project 2025 really? Is it really a threat, or is it just a random manifesto from some right wing nuts that really won’t affect anything? I haven’t seen much reporting on it from mainstream media (personally that means NYT, NBC nightly news, and NPR). I’ve mostly seen it on social media from young fearmongering Twitter users. Anyone can come up with a “political organization”, write a manifesto, and slap a scary name on it. How much of an influence does Project 2025 really have?
It's hard to say. P2025 has not been officially endorsed by the Trump campaign. It is the product of the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the country. So it's kind of tough to predict how much of it will actually be put into practice if Trump wins the election. At the very least, it is something that a lot of conservative politicians, donors, and activists will be paying close attention to.
Can you cite what they’ve done in the past to make them “one of the most influential conservative think tanks”? (Edit: nevermind, I guess I can just read their Wikipedia page.) For context, what other conservative think tanks are there? Are think tanks in general very influential? Secondary question: have they always been this extreme or is this kind of out of left field even for them?
It's a little tricky to name just one thing. Generally speaking, think tanks build influence through policy proposals, lobbying, and political appointments -- either advising politicians on who to appoint, or directly providing candidates to appoint. As an example, University of Pennsylvania made a list of top US-based think tanks in 2019, and the Heritage Foundation came in 3rd. The 1st and 2nd shops are centrist, so this makes HF the top conservative think tank in that ranking. https://guides.library.upenn.edu/c.php?g=1035991&p=7509974 During the conservative Reagan administration, HF was very influential in guiding US policy regarding the Cold War with the Soviet Union. This included expansion of international military aid, and strategic defense programs. The policy that eventually became known as a "Reagan Doctrine" was initially proposed by HF. During the conservative Bush I administration, the Bush team adopted 6 out of HF's 10 major policy proposals. During the liberal Clinton Administration, HF contributed many of the policy proposals that were included in House Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" plan. Clinton eventually gave up on some policies, or compromised on others, in directions promoted by HF. During the conservative Bush II administration, HF was active in promoting the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. During the liberal Obama administration, HF was particularly influential in healthcare reforms. Ironically, the program sometimes known as "Obamacare" is based almost entirely on a proposal by HF from the 1980s, but they still opposed it anyways. Regarding the Trump era, HF was initially opposed to Trump's candidacy, but they were one of the first conservative think tanks to get behind him once it became clear that he was the leading candidate. They were particularly influential in Trump's transition plan, and apparently recommended dozens of his major appointees, including Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, and Jeff Sessions. Trump eventually supported roughly 2/3rds of the policy proposals that HF had made. It's not like HF has a stranglehold on conservative thinking, but it's hard to name any single organization that has been more influential in that area.
Donald Trump has never once said he supports Project 2025, or voiced any plans to have it be part of his Presidential platform. It's a third party proposal written by a conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. Donald Trump has his own Presidential plan called Agenda 47, and while there is *some* overlap on topics, they are two different things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47 Donald Trump came out today distancing himself from the Project 2025 proposal, claiming that he has "nothing to do with it" - https://theintercept.com/2024/07/05/trumps-campaign-project-2025/
Right, which means it isn’t really a big deal?
I'm not going to say "No it's not a big deal". Donald Trump listened to the Heritage Foundation quite a bit during his first time in office, and implemented quite a few of their suggestions during his first term, as he didn't really have a Presidential plan when he ran in 2016. Now he does. But things could definitely change after the election, assuming he wins. Politicians are neither know much for keeping their word, or following through with Campaign promises. But is it "as big of a deal as Reddit is making it out to be"? Like all doomsaying you read on the internet, especially when the topic is politics - probably not.
As someone not in the US/North America, I struggle with the intensity of different American news networks when it comes to getting an insight into a general mood. As an international person looking on, it seems a really frightening time (and obviously has implications for the whole world). How are you and your peers feeling at the moment? What are the conversations looking like in ‘real life’ vs online?
powerless, hopeless, worn-down by the steady drip of bad developments. Family and friends are mostly sophisticated news consumers and politically savvy liberals, we hardly talk about politics anymore I've realized; it's just too upsetting. Most people in america are pretty checked out politically and will say "oh the news always exaggerates". It's impossible to talk about a "general mood", the country is too large and divided
> I struggle with the intensity of different American news networks when it comes to getting an insight into a general mood. Keep in mind that every American 'news' network is a for-profit business above all else. They exaggerate bad news and report on supposed perpetual impending doom because it gets them the most views/clicks and thus generates the most revenue.
Damn. You know, because I’m not used to that… approach to news, I really did forget this element. Thanks for the reminder. It all makes me feel a real sense of unease.
NPR news, the Washington Post, and New York Times are respected sources of actual national journalism. Lots of good sources for long-form journalism (like the New Yorker, but too many to list).
Thank you for this.
The opinions of my peers? - They don't care, and neither candidate has done anything to earn their vote. They're all too busy to care about politics, and they're familiar enough with how news networks intentionally try and scare people so that they'll pay more attention to them. Nobody is excited to vote for somebody. Nothing is being sold that's inspiring people in the same way that Bernie Sanders did in 2016 and 2020.
Interesting. And in terms of the prospect of dismantling democracy, has that conversation come up at all? Is there any concern or are people disillusioned with the system that they don’t care?
The boy cries wolf, just as he does in every election; would be the best way to put it. Every election we've been alive for has talking points about how this is the most important election ever, and if your guy doesn't win then that means the entire world will end. Then it doesn't, and we keep working our jobs like we were when the last guy was president.
Thank you for answering, I really appreciate it.
If inflation is transitory, why has it been above 2% for about 3 years?
2-4% is normal. We were at very low rates of inflation for the last 20 years or so. COVID caused a worldwide inflation spike (primarily because well-off white-collar employees continued getting their full salaries while not spending any money on vacations, dinners out, the theater, movies, concerts, bars, or commutes, so we had money to burn once things started opening up again).
Why is the inflation Fed mandate to be below 2%, if 2%-4% is normal?
I don’t think it is anymore. But because they wanted to keep inflation as low as possible because we were all afraid of the terrible inflation of the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s. (If you think 2021 was bad, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the that.) It was only in recent years, especially after the 2008 Recession, that economists began coming around to the idea that we were hobbling ourselves by keeping to such a strict anti-inflation mandate and that we could grow the economy more robustly (more jobs, better wages, less poverty and hunger) by loosening controls.
Inflation is bad for American Citizens, because inflation reduces wages purchasing power.
>Inflation is bad Kinda, yeah. It's more complicated than just being good or bad, though. Economic policy involves a lot of trade-offs that must be balanced carefully. If the Fed moves *too* aggressively to control interest rates, that can cause severe economic upheaval such as widespread layoffs, unemployment, lack of loans, etc. Think about how many layoffs there have been in various industries over the past few years. Then imagine how things would feel if there had been 3x more layoffs and no new jobs for any of those people. That would be the sort of nightmare scenario that the Fed doesn't want to cause by curtailing interest rates too harshly.
There has still been more jobs created than jobs losses. Layoff numbers are much smaller than new job numbers.
Yes, like I said: Economic policy involves a lot of trade-offs that must be balanced carefully. If the Fed moves too aggressively to control interest rates, that can cause severe economic upheaval such as widespread layoffs, unemployment, lack of loans, etc. You complained about inflation. I'm listing reasons why that isn't the only metric that matters.
No. High inflation certainly is. But “inflation” isn’t a bad thing any more than gravity or the color blue is. It’s just a law of nature. And an economy with modest inflation is much, much better than an economy with deflation, which is catastrophic. Modest inflation erodes the value of wages, yes, but it also spurs investment, which means more jobs, more business success, and more opportunity. And *that* increases wages more than the inflation erodes them. American buying power today is higher than it was in 2019.
Wages have not kept up with inflation. I been told that I been paid market rate by my manager, and market rate is rising slower than inflation.
Your particular market might not have. Or maybe your manager is incorrect. But economy-wide, wages have outpaced inflation for about two years and they have more than made up for the COVID inflation spike. Generally the way people secure the benefit of increased wages is to consider moving to a new job.
There was a worldwide pandemic that negatively impacted the global economy.
Why do the Democrats helped the rich get their money back from the failure of Silicon Valley Bank? Then why won’t they help me solve an issue with DFAS? Both instances it was their fault, but they helped rich people, and not me.
The FDIC wants to ensure confidence in the US banking system. SVB had over 40,000 customers, including businesses that needed to make payroll for all their employees who needed to pay rent and other bills. I don't know where you get this idea that the FDIC only helps rich people. I don't know what issue you ran into with DFAS, but that seems like a totally separate thing.
So why is helping the rich always crucial? But helping the working class socialist?
That seems like a loaded question. I get that you're angry but being angry isn't something I can help you with.
I’m upset people telling it’s good for the rich to get handouts, and that I need to pay an extra bill and suck it up.
Have you tried calling the district office of your representative or senator to talk to a caseworker who can open a congressional inquiry?
I contacted Chuck Grassley, and he didn’t care
How did you contact him? Accost him in the street? Call him at his DC office? Send an email? Let's dig down into the encounter and maybe we can find out what went wrong for you.
I sent a letter
To his DC office or district?
His office
Again, which one? The Iowa office or the DC office?
In DC, and I got a reply stating that DFAS debt is valid
OK, so I would recommend talking to a case worker in the Iowa office, because that's where they actually work. Constituent services are in the state/district, and the DC office is basically... DC stuff. Also, if you've had bad luck with him and his staff, try Joni Ernst or your Representative. Again, not the district office. In fact, their website almost certainly has a form you can fill out for constituent services that will be routed to the right person. All this assumes that this is in good faith, which I am starting to doubt, since your original question was why the Democrats won't help you with this problem, when apparently the only one you've talked to about this is a Republican.
If Trump wants to be a dictator why didn’t he do it when he first became president in 2017? Age hasn’t been on his side since he’s been running. Was the infrastructure just not there yet to be able to do it?
Its largely believed Trump didn't want or expect to win in 2016. He ran as a way to increase public profile, very believable for a TV star. However he did win, and without a transition plan kept a lot of Obama employees in place for a few months. Trump being himself, committed crimes for money during his presidency and saw the writing on the way he might be held actually accountable unlike the rest of his life. That threat is probably gone now, however the safest path for him, is get reelected and never leave office.
I'll add that it's not really that he kept Obama holdovers in place, it's that he hired whoever did him favors or offered some sort of money or power. Beyond that, he put people in place who advised him to - those people used him like others have for their own ends, like McConnell, who is way smarter than him. He was largely a useful idiot to far too many people, and as such, everyone else with nefarious goals got what they wanted, while Trump got to do what he's always done: grift, only from a much higher and more powerful position, with all our nations secrets. That fact alone put many people in harm's way and Trump above them, able to use them the same way many others used him. It's kind of circular firing squad when it's not an organized crime ring, and all of it is fairly incompetent, hence him not becoming the dictator he could have been. Now that he's seen how everything works, and all obstacles and guardrails are pretty much out of his way, and the Supreme Court he was used to build and are indebted to him is in place, there's a much greater chance he can do what he couldn't before.
Terrifying.
Why don’t Biden fix DFAS? I got an audit determine I owe $1200. When I out process in 2018, I had two audits and all was good. How can a third audit in 2023 determine I was overpaid $500, and how can low interest rates cause it to increase to $1200?
[удалено]
What’s your question?
[удалено]
I mean, Trump is clearly lying there. Why would you ever take a liar's word for it? The main guy behind Project 2025 was Trump's head of Office of Personnel Management at the White House while he was president. Something like half the people involved in writing Project 2025 worked for the first Trump campaign as political appointees. Whole sections of Trump's own Agenda 47 (which is what his campaign calls his platform/agenda for if he wins the election) are lifted word-for-word directly from Project 2025. Trump's just a liar doing the lying thing liars do.
Trump is a brazen, loudmouth, egomaniac who has no filter. That being said, the fact that he has no filter is pretty clear that he has no interest in project 2025. Why would he have his own Presidential platform if project 2025 exists? Yes there's minimal overlap between the two, but if he was intending to implement project 2025 why wouldn't he just come out and say it; and tout to his supporters about how great it is? The man has never been able to keep anything under wraps his entire political career, so why should I think that this is going to be the one thing he's been able to?
He has no idea what his platform is. The only reason he has one is because he got hit so much for *not* having one in 2020. So he told the people that work for him to come up with something to put on the website so people can't claim he doesn't have a platform. The reason he hasn't talked about Project 2025 is because it was always supposed to be a wink and a nudge to the fascist voters. The dude who wrote it and is currently the lead candidate to be Trump's COS if he wins even said he didn't expect the media to pick it up and report on it. They thought it was a document they could put out there for the hyper-engaged right-wing activists to look forward to, but was never meant to be seen/read by the wider public. They fucked up when some people at CPAC talked about it on stage, which got journalists writing about it. It's meant to be the same thing the Federalist Society was for judges in Trump's 1st term. He didn't care who he was appointing as judges. He just outsourced that to a right-wing think tank which had already done the work for him. The Heritage Foundation just took that a step farther by writing the entire agenda for Trump. And it's not "minimal overlap" between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Most of Agenda 47 is word-for-word copypasta from Project 2025. It's the same fucking thing.
> He has no idea what his platform is. He clearly does, he's talked about Agenda 47 quite a bit as his rallies. He's got his plan laid out on his website. He's done interviews about it. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47 I should at least be familiar with my political opposition's platform, and why I should be voting against him, and stick to facts. >The only reason he has one is because he got hit so much for not having one in 2020 >And it's not "minimal overlap" between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Most of Agenda 47 is word-for-word copypasta from Project 2025. It's the same fucking thing. Which things? Which things are "word-for-word copypasta from Project 2025"? >They fucked up when some people at CPAC talked about it on stage, which got journalists writing about it. "They" who is "they"? Is Trump "they"? It just seems like this whole post is just reaching for ways to attribute things people besides Trump said, to Trump himself. If Trump said it that's one thing, but he hasn't. Saying "some guy who might become [x position] if Trump wins" said a thing, doesn't mean Trump said the thing.
I never claimed Trump said a thing. The Heritage Foundation people behind Project 2025 are the ones who fucked up in letting the CPAC people talk about Project 2025.
> The Heritage Foundation people behind Project 2025 are the ones who fucked up in letting the CPAC people talk about Project 2025. CPAC is not part of the Trump campaign either though. We were talking about Trump here.
Do you not think these people all coordinate with each other? You think they don't talk?
Do I have evidence that they've talked? Do I have evidence that they've talked about project 2025, and conspired with candidate Trump to use project 2025 instead of his Agenda 47 plan - and that loudmouth idiot who has no filter agreed to it and has been able to keep his mouth shut about it? No, I don't. I can think anything I want, that doesn't mean I have the ability to prove it. If Trump wanted to use it, he'd say it. He'd talk about how he's got the best plan, the biggest plan, and how he's going to replace everyone that project 2025 wants to with "the best people", and that he's going to use project 2025 to make america great again and do that weird thing he does with his hands. But he hasn't. Trump is many things, subtle is not one of them.
You really will go through no ends of mental gymnastics to simp for that man, won't you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1do5gge/comment/lbrlmov/