In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects free speech almost absolutely, allowing white supremacist groups, neo-Nazis and other far-right organizations to demonstrate publicly without government intervention, as long as they do not directly incite violence. Why has this legal protection allowed events such as the Right-wing Unity March in Charlottesville in 2017, where neo-Nazis and white nationalists paraded with torches chanting slogans such as 'Jews will not replace us,' to take place without prior restrictions? How is it possible that in multiple U.S. cities, demonstrations by groups like the Ku Klux Klan or the neo-Nazi militia Patriot Front are allowed, while in countries like Germany, where Nazism had its origins, hate speech, including the swastika and the Nazi salute, has been banned?

Throughout history, the U.S. has protected these expressions even when they generate social tension and violence, as happened in the 1970s with the Nazi Party of America case in Skokie, Illinois, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right of neo-Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors. Why does U.S. law not prevent the display of symbols such as the swastika, the Confederate flag, or the Nazi-inspired 'Sonnenrad' (sun wheel), despite being linked to hate crimes? What role do factors such as lobbying by far-right groups, the influence of political sectors that minimize the problem of white supremacism, and inconsistent enforcement of hate crime laws play in this permissiveness?

In addition, FBI ([2022](https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics-2022)) ([2023](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-violent-crime-decreased-2023-hate-crimes-rose-fbi-reports-2024-09-23/)) studies have pointed to an increase in white supremacist group activity and an increase in hate crimes in recent years. Why, despite intelligence agencies warning that right-wing extremism represents one of the main threats of domestic terrorism, do these groups continue to operate with relative impunity? What responsibility do digital platforms have in spreading supremacist ideologies and radicalizing new members? To what extent does the First Amendment protect speech that advocates racial discrimination and violence, and where should the line be drawn between free speech and hate speech?

I ask all this with respect, with no intention to offend or attack any society. The question is based on news that have reached me and different people around the world. Here are some of these news items:

* [Charlottesville, Virginia, Reels From Deadly White Nationalist Rally](https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-08-14/ty-article-live/charlottesville-virginia-reels-from-deadly-white-nationalist-rally/0000017f-e3c8-d38f-a57f-e7da10180000)
* [Unity rally in Howell pushes back on recent white supremacy demonstrations](https://michiganadvance.com/2024/11/25/unity-rally-in-howell-pushes-back-on-recent-white-supremacy-demonstrations/)
* [Neo-Nazis are on the March across America](https://www.wired.com/story/neo-nazi-demonstrations-trump/)
* [White Nationalist Group Proud Boys March in DC to Celebrate Trump’s Inauguration](https://truthout.org/articles/we-are-back-proud-boys-march-in-dc-celebrating-trumps-inauguration/)

And so there are a lot of other news... Why does this phenomenon happen?

Why do white supremacists have so much freedom in the United States?

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects free speech almost absolutely, allowing white supremacist groups, neo-Nazis and other far-right organizations to demonstrate publicly without government intervention, as long as they do not directly incite violence. Why has this legal protection allowed events such as the Right-wing Unity March in Charlottesville in 2017, where neo-Nazis and white nationalists paraded with torches chanting slogans such as &#39;Jews will not replace us,&#39; to take place without prior restrictions? How is it possible that in multiple U.S. cities, demonstrations by groups like the Ku Klux Klan or the neo-Nazi militia Patriot Front are allowed, while in countries like Germany, where Nazism had its origins, hate speech, including the swastika and the Nazi salute, has been banned?

Throughout history, the U.S. has protected these expressions even when they generate social tension and violence, as happened in the 1970s with the Nazi Party of America case in Skokie, Illinois, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right of neo-Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors. Why does U.S. law not prevent the display of symbols such as the swastika, the Confederate flag, or the Nazi-inspired &#39;Sonnenrad&#39; (sun wheel), despite being linked to hate crimes? What role do factors such as lobbying by far-right groups, the influence of political sectors that minimize the problem of white supremacism, and inconsistent enforcement of hate crime laws play in this permissiveness?

In addition, FBI (2022) (2023) studies have pointed to an increase in white supremacist group activity and an increase in hate crimes in recent years. Why, despite intelligence agencies warning that right-wing extremism represents one of the main threats of domestic terrorism, do these groups continue to operate with relative impunity? What responsibility do digital platforms have in spreading supremacist ideologies and radicalizing new members? To what extent does the First Amendment protect speech that advocates racial discrimination and violence, and where should the line be drawn between free speech and hate speech?

I ask all this with respect, with no intention to offend or attack any society. The question is based on news that have reached me and different people around the world. Here are some of these news items:

Charlottesville, Virginia, Reels From Deadly White Nationalist Rally

Unity rally in Howell pushes back on recent white supremacy demonstrations

Neo-Nazis are on the March across America

White Nationalist Group Proud Boys March in DC to Celebrate Trump’s Inauguration

And so there are a lot of other news... Why does this phenomenon happen?


I am from Australia and have seen the conservative media attacking Indigenous reconciliation virtually everyday such as around the ceremonies (aka Welcome to Country/Acknowledgment to Country) in the name of “We are all one ,Australians” and became so widespread that the mainstream Conservative Party is now opposed to placing by the Indigenous Flags alongside the National Flags. Australia is often known as a country with more rational politics yet with this culture war around the Indigenous People happening, do you think the GOP and the Conservative media will take note and begin to start attacking Indigenous Policies?

Could Native Americans sovereignty and rights be the next culture wars?


In recent politics there have been two major political pushes for diversity and equality.  However, both instances led to backlashes that have led to an environment that is arguably worse than it was before.  In 2008 Obama was the first black president one a massive wave of hope for racial equality and societal reforms.  This led to one of the largest political backlashes in modern politics in 2010, to which  democrats have yet to fully recover from.  This eventually led to birtherism which planted some of the original seeds of both Trump and MAGA. The second massive political push promoting diversity and equality was in 2018 with the modern woman election and 2020 with racial equality being a top priority.  Biden made diversifying the government a top priority.  This led to an extreme backlash among both culture and politics with anti-woke and anti-DEI efforts.  This resent contributed to Trump retaking the presidency.  Now Trump is pushing to remove all mentions of DEI in both the private and public sectors.  He is hiding all instances that highlight any racial or gender successes.  His administration is pushing culture to return to a world prior to the civil rights era.

This leads me to my question.  Will there be a backlash for this?  How will it occur?  How can democrats lead and take advantage of the backlash while trying to mitigate a backlash to their own movement?  It seems as though every attempt has led to a stronger and more severe response.

Additional side questions.  How did public opinion shift so drastically from 2018/2020 which were extremely pro-equality to 2024 which is calling for a return of the 1950s?

How can democrats attack anti-DEI/promote DEI without resulting in strong political backlash?


Many progressives argue we’re facing a constitutional crisis, citing actions like:
- Attempts to dismantle or reorganize independent agencies (e.g., efforts to dissolve USAID) without congressional approval.
- Using broad “national emergency” declarations to sidestep budget oversight.
These moves have drawn little resistance from a Republican-led Congress.

**To counter this, what would a successful mass protest look like?**
1. What’s the minimum turnout needed for a march on Washington to pressure lawmakers? Are there historical benchmarks (e.g., the 1963 March on Washington’s 250,000+ attendees) that signal effectiveness?
2. What lessons from past movements—like the Selma marches’ focus on media narratives or the 1963 march’s coalition-building—could ensure protests lead to policy change? How can organizers maintain momentum beyond a single event?

In your view, what practical steps could turn public outrage into legislative action?

How can peaceful public protests push Congress to address concerns that the executive branch is overstepping its authority?

Many progressives argue we’re facing a constitutional crisis, citing actions like:

- Attempts to dismantle or reorganize independent agencies (e.g., efforts to dissolve USAID) without congressional approval.

- Using broad “national emergency” declarations to sidestep budget oversight.

These moves have drawn little resistance from a Republican-led Congress.

To counter this, what would a successful mass protest look like?

1. What’s the minimum turnout needed for a march on Washington to pressure lawmakers? Are there historical benchmarks (e.g., the 1963 March on Washington’s 250,000+ attendees) that signal effectiveness?

2. What lessons from past movements—like the Selma marches’ focus on media narratives or the 1963 march’s coalition-building—could ensure protests lead to policy change? How can organizers maintain momentum beyond a single event?

In your view, what practical steps could turn public outrage into legislative action?


With today’s technology and political climate being so divided and hostile do you think we should move to a direct democracy?

Let everyone have a say on the important topics.

An app or website that every U.S citizen could access.
- Of course this would have to be the most secure platform possible

- everyone can vote for their representatives

- everyone can vote on major issues

- we still have government representatives to prevent voter fatigue on smaller less important issues but for bigger ones like should we send x amount of billions of dollars to this foreign country

- view government spending, we all pay to fund the government we should see were it goes. Ik some things are confidential for security but there should be a way to see where all of our tax dollars go

This is all hypothetical but as technology gets better and as more people are more technologically inclined. This only makes sense to bring back the power to the people. As government officials are becoming less trustworthy

Would a direct democracy work with todays technology?

With today’s technology and political climate being so divided and hostile do you think we should move to a direct democracy?

Let everyone have a say on the important topics.

An app or website that every U.S citizen could access.
- Of course this would have to be the most secure platform possible

everyone can vote for their representatives

everyone can vote on major issues

we still have government representatives to prevent voter fatigue on smaller less important issues but for bigger ones like should we send x amount of billions of dollars to this foreign country

view government spending, we all pay to fund the government we should see were it goes. Ik some things are confidential for security but there should be a way to see where all of our tax dollars go

This is all hypothetical but as technology gets better and as more people are more technologically inclined. This only makes sense to bring back the power to the people. As government officials are becoming less trustworthy


I labeled this as US politics but I think this applies more broadly.

We have seen immense misinformation and conspiracy. It's to the point that there are two world views to literally everything that happens. Somehow, objectivity has been pushed to the side. I won't even talk about the most basic news events with anyone but close friends and family for fear that somehow it will be politicized. The conspiratorial thinking has been injected into everything. It's as if certain groups live in entirely different worlds.

 But can we be reeled back from all this? It only seems to be accelerating. I am trying to be optimistic. I want to see a path forward for regular discourse and objective truth. I am finding it very hard to see the light.

Has this ever been experienced in the past? On such a large scale? History repeats itself. So what has happened? The internet and connectivity and manipulation of our minds seems a bit unprecedented. But maybe there's a path out of this that has been paved before.

What do you think?

Can we make it back from misinformation and conspiracy?

I labeled this as US politics but I think this applies more broadly.

We have seen immense misinformation and conspiracy. It&#39;s to the point that there are two world views to literally everything that happens. Somehow, objectivity has been pushed to the side. I won&#39;t even talk about the most basic news events with anyone but close friends and family for fear that somehow it will be politicized. The conspiratorial thinking has been injected into everything. It&#39;s as if certain groups live in entirely different worlds.

But can we be reeled back from all this? It only seems to be accelerating. I am trying to be optimistic. I want to see a path forward for regular discourse and objective truth. I am finding it very hard to see the light.

Has this ever been experienced in the past? On such a large scale? History repeats itself. So what has happened? The internet and connectivity and manipulation of our minds seems a bit unprecedented. But maybe there&#39;s a path out of this that has been paved before.

What do you think?


I recently came across a video explaining something called the 'Russian tail' in election data analysis, and it got me thinking—how often does this pattern appear in elections worldwide? If it's been documented in contested elections before, could it be a sign of deeper systemic issues? And more importantly, could similar anomalies have influenced past U.S. elections—or even shape future ones?

A Russian tail is a statistical anomaly often observed in elections with suspected fraud. Normally, vote distributions follow a smooth bell curve, but in some cases, an extra spike appears—suggesting that votes may have been shifted in specific precincts. This pattern has been documented in Russian elections, Georgia elections and and some watchdog groups claim to have seen similar anomalies in Romania most recently. There were independent journalists and analysts that reported they noticed the same anomalies in the November 2024 U.S election.

With all the concerns about election integrity and foreign interference—especially disinformation campaigns aimed at making people distrust results—do you think statistical anomalies like this could impact public confidence in the U.S. electoral process? Even if fraud isn’t proven, does simply showing these data patterns create enough doubt to destabilize democracy?

Curious to hear what others think! Have you seen any credible research on this in U.S. elections? Could this be a real issue, or is it just another layer of political chaos?

The 'Russian Tail' in Election Data: A Red Flag or a Bigger Threat?

I recently came across a video explaining something called the &#39;Russian tail&#39; in election data analysis, and it got me thinking—how often does this pattern appear in elections worldwide? If it&#39;s been documented in contested elections before, could it be a sign of deeper systemic issues? And more importantly, could similar anomalies have influenced past U.S. elections—or even shape future ones?

A Russian tail is a statistical anomaly often observed in elections with suspected fraud. Normally, vote distributions follow a smooth bell curve, but in some cases, an extra spike appears—suggesting that votes may have been shifted in specific precincts. This pattern has been documented in Russian elections, Georgia elections and and some watchdog groups claim to have seen similar anomalies in Romania most recently. There were independent journalists and analysts that reported they noticed the same anomalies in the November 2024 U.S election.

With all the concerns about election integrity and foreign interference—especially disinformation campaigns aimed at making people distrust results—do you think statistical anomalies like this could impact public confidence in the U.S. electoral process? Even if fraud isn’t proven, does simply showing these data patterns create enough doubt to destabilize democracy?

Curious to hear what others think! Have you seen any credible research on this in U.S. elections? Could this be a real issue, or is it just another layer of political chaos?


Over the past few weeks, Elon Musk and his team at the **Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)** have taken actions that some argue resemble historical authoritarian power grabs. Reports indicate that Musk’s team has **gained access to Treasury payment systems** and has begun dismantling agencies like **USAID without congressional approval**. The ability of a private citizen to consolidate power in this way raises serious concerns about **democratic oversight, separation of powers, and national security risks**.

Historically, authoritarian figures have used legal mechanisms to **sidestep traditional checks and balances**, and critics argue that we’re seeing a similar pattern here. However, others believe that **government agencies have become bloated and inefficient**, and Musk’s involvement may be necessary to “streamline” operations.

How do you see this situation playing out? **Is Musk’s role a dangerous overreach, or is it a justified move toward government efficiency?** What safeguards should be in place to prevent **unelected individuals from gaining unchecked control over government operations?**

(For those interested in a deeper dive, I recently wrote an article on this topic: [\[Medium Link\]](https://medium.com/@TrendsToday/musk-trump-and-the-consolidation-of-government-a-historical-parallel-to-authoritarianism-437da316dc1f))

Is Elon Musk’s Expanding Government Influence a Threat to Democracy?

Over the past few weeks, Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have taken actions that some argue resemble historical authoritarian power grabs. Reports indicate that Musk’s team has gained access to Treasury payment systems and has begun dismantling agencies like USAID without congressional approval. The ability of a private citizen to consolidate power in this way raises serious concerns about democratic oversight, separation of powers, and national security risks.

Historically, authoritarian figures have used legal mechanisms to sidestep traditional checks and balances, and critics argue that we’re seeing a similar pattern here. However, others believe that government agencies have become bloated and inefficient, and Musk’s involvement may be necessary to “streamline” operations.

How do you see this situation playing out? Is Musk’s role a dangerous overreach, or is it a justified move toward government efficiency? What safeguards should be in place to prevent unelected individuals from gaining unchecked control over government operations?

(For those interested in a deeper dive, I recently wrote an article on this topic: [Medium Link])


In recent weeks since Trump came back into the presidency, much of the political commentary, especially angst on the part of the left, is directed toward Elon Musk's DOGE team of young engineers accessing various governmental agencies with the approval of Trump. The goal is supposedly to root out inefficiencies and eliminated programs and policies that are contrary to Trump's executive orders. A lot of the attention has been focused on how young and inexperienced these techies are and how they might not understand what they are doing to the inner workings of the departments they are reviewing.

Back in 2009, after Barack Obama came into office, a much different media environment existed where the flock of young staffers, policy gurus and even techies from what was then a mostly Democratic Silicon Valley, were praised and given supportive backing by many of the same journalist outlets. The profiles were largely about how these eager college grads would transform government and bring it into the 21st century while also repudiating anything under the then despised outgoing president George W. Bush.

Why do you think the attention on the young cohort of government whiz kids is so different from today under Trump than it was under Obama? Is it just partisan bias? What similarities and differences are there between the two? How have Republicans and Democrats reacted in both cases? Is the media treatment fair or just shaped by different environments (social media now v. traditional media with a hint of social then)?

How is Musk's DOGE team in 2025 different from Obama's young staffers in 2009?

In recent weeks since Trump came back into the presidency, much of the political commentary, especially angst on the part of the left, is directed toward Elon Musk&#39;s DOGE team of young engineers accessing various governmental agencies with the approval of Trump. The goal is supposedly to root out inefficiencies and eliminated programs and policies that are contrary to Trump&#39;s executive orders. A lot of the attention has been focused on how young and inexperienced these techies are and how they might not understand what they are doing to the inner workings of the departments they are reviewing.

Back in 2009, after Barack Obama came into office, a much different media environment existed where the flock of young staffers, policy gurus and even techies from what was then a mostly Democratic Silicon Valley, were praised and given supportive backing by many of the same journalist outlets. The profiles were largely about how these eager college grads would transform government and bring it into the 21st century while also repudiating anything under the then despised outgoing president George W. Bush.

Why do you think the attention on the young cohort of government whiz kids is so different from today under Trump than it was under Obama? Is it just partisan bias? What similarities and differences are there between the two? How have Republicans and Democrats reacted in both cases? Is the media treatment fair or just shaped by different environments (social media now v. traditional media with a hint of social then)?


Trump has also talked about a pause in the war as negotiations are initiated and eventual resolution. He has spoken of rare earth minerals from Ukraine for continued support, \[except most of that land is presently occupied by the Russians.\]

Many think that it is possible Trump would be willing to resolve the conflict for concession of land by the Ukrainians. This option may not be acceptable to Ukraine, however, unless they get something significant in return.

Nonetheless, unlike Biden Trump is open to talks with Putin and has promised to do so. Putin recently noted in an interview that he is open to talks with Trump.

“We always had a business-like, pragmatic but also trusting relationship with the current U.S. president,” Putin said. “I couldn’t disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn’t stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided.”

Is Trump more likely to escalate the war with more support for Ukraine?

[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ldpnyewx1o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ldpnyewx1o)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4q7v7ez1o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4q7v7ez1o)

Trump's position on how to resolve the Ukrainian conflict continues to fluctuate ranging from bringing the war to an immediate halt to further escalation. Is Trump more likely to escalate the war with more support for Ukraine?

Trump has also talked about a pause in the war as negotiations are initiated and eventual resolution. He has spoken of rare earth minerals from Ukraine for continued support, [except most of that land is presently occupied by the Russians.]

Many think that it is possible Trump would be willing to resolve the conflict for concession of land by the Ukrainians. This option may not be acceptable to Ukraine, however, unless they get something significant in return.

Nonetheless, unlike Biden Trump is open to talks with Putin and has promised to do so. Putin recently noted in an interview that he is open to talks with Trump.

“We always had a business-like, pragmatic but also trusting relationship with the current U.S. president,” Putin said. “I couldn’t disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn’t stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided.”

Is Trump more likely to escalate the war with more support for Ukraine?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ldpnyewx1o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4q7v7ez1o


I've heard some people say that Trump ran for president in 2016 because of the mocking he endured at the hands of Barack Obama and Seth Meyers at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, Is there any strong evidence for this idea?

Is there any solid evidence for the idea that Trump was in 2016 because of the 2011 WHCD?

I&#39;ve heard some people say that Trump ran for president in 2016 because of the mocking he endured at the hands of Barack Obama and Seth Meyers at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, Is there any strong evidence for this idea?


Trump just announced that the U.S. will take control of Gaza to redevelop it, and he wants the Palestinians to be relocated. What potential ripple effects could this have on the Middle East? Do you all think the U.S. will relinquish control of Gaza after it is redeveloped, or could this region become an official U.S. territory or state? If the region becomes part of the U.S., could this lead to U.S. imperialism in the Middle East? What are our enemies’ likely responses, such as Iran’s; could we likely see another war against terrorism or the collapse of Iran?

What are the geopolitical implications of the U.S. control of Gaza?


Just watched [Frontline’s Trump’s Comeback](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/trumps-comeback/), and it really digs into how Trump’s political brand was built through PR, reality TV, and media influence. *The Apprentice* played a huge role in reshaping his image, turning him into a decisive business mogul while downplaying his bankruptcies and financial missteps. The documentary also covers how he’s used the press to his advantage for decades, from planting tabloid stories to commanding nonstop coverage in 2016.

Trump isn’t the first politician to shape his own narrative, but his ability to dominate media cycles, even through scandals, raises bigger questions about how much perception outweighs reality in politics. In an era where social media and 24/7 news drive engagement, does branding matter more than actual achievements?

Curious to hear others’ thoughts: does the documentary change how you see Trump’s rise, or is this just how modern politics works?

How Much Does Media Shape Political Success?

Just watched Frontline’s Trump’s Comeback, and it really digs into how Trump’s political brand was built through PR, reality TV, and media influence. The Apprentice played a huge role in reshaping his image, turning him into a decisive business mogul while downplaying his bankruptcies and financial missteps. The documentary also covers how he’s used the press to his advantage for decades, from planting tabloid stories to commanding nonstop coverage in 2016.

Trump isn’t the first politician to shape his own narrative, but his ability to dominate media cycles, even through scandals, raises bigger questions about how much perception outweighs reality in politics. In an era where social media and 24/7 news drive engagement, does branding matter more than actual achievements?

Curious to hear others’ thoughts: does the documentary change how you see Trump’s rise, or is this just how modern politics works?


Saudi Arabia appears to be reclaiming its regional influence with the recent political shift in Syria. Newly appointed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the uprising against Iran-backed Bashar al-Assad, made Riyadh his first foreign visit, signaling a potential shift in alliances.

Is Saudi Arabia on the path to reestablishing itself as the dominant force in the Middle East?

More here:
[https://caracal.website/saudi-arabia-middle-east-influence-syria/](https://caracal.website/saudi-arabia-middle-east-influence-syria/)

Is Saudi Arabia Reclaiming Its Role as the Middle East’s Dominant Power with Syria’s New Leadership?

Saudi Arabia appears to be reclaiming its regional influence with the recent political shift in Syria. Newly appointed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the uprising against Iran-backed Bashar al-Assad, made Riyadh his first foreign visit, signaling a potential shift in alliances.

Is Saudi Arabia on the path to reestablishing itself as the dominant force in the Middle East?

More here:

https://caracal.website/saudi-arabia-middle-east-influence-syria/


when we hear about Trump's policies like tariffs, trade deals, or economic policies in the news, it’s often hard to figure out:

* **Will this cost me more money?** (e.g., Will my groceries or electronics get more expensive?)
* **Will I make more or less money?** (e.g., Will my job be affected? Will my salary change?)
* **What should I do about it?** (e.g., Should I buy certain things now before prices go up? Should I save more money?)

For example, if a new **tariff** is placed on imported goods from China,  does it mean:

* Higher prices on everyday items like smartphones, clothes, and cars.
* Some U.S. businesses might benefit (e.g., American-made products become more competitive).
* Other industries might struggle (e.g., companies that rely on imported materials might raise prices or cut jobs).

What do you think?

How can we estimate the impact of Trump's policies, such as tariffs, on the daily lives of people in the U.S. and other countries?

when we hear about Trump&#39;s policies like tariffs, trade deals, or economic policies in the news, it’s often hard to figure out:

Will this cost me more money? (e.g., Will my groceries or electronics get more expensive?)

Will I make more or less money? (e.g., Will my job be affected? Will my salary change?)

What should I do about it? (e.g., Should I buy certain things now before prices go up? Should I save more money?)

For example, if a new tariff is placed on imported goods from China,  does it mean:

Higher prices on everyday items like smartphones, clothes, and cars.

Some U.S. businesses might benefit (e.g., American-made products become more competitive).

Other industries might struggle (e.g., companies that rely on imported materials might raise prices or cut jobs).

What do you think?


And can he dismantle individual programs within a department without Congress?

For example, could Trump issue an EO that would move student loan programs from the Dept of Education to another department?

If not, and such a move requires Congress, can he shutter such a program with an EO after it gets moved around to another department? The hypothetical scenario I’m imagining is that the current bill introduced by Republicans (HR 899) to shutter the Dept of Education gets passed because they assure everyone that the key programs are being moved to other agencies, not eliminated (and this is indeed in the bill). But then the executive branch is somehow able to gut or eliminate those individual programs once they get moved. Is this possible or likely?

Also thinking about this in terms of USAID and other programs.

Can the Executive Branch move programs from one department to another without Congressional action?


The criticism is clear—the access he’s taken is unconstitutional.

There is a constitutional path to achieve what he states his goal is.

For supporters of this administration, what is the defense for this end run around the constitutional process?

Is there any articulated defense?

What is the defense of Musk’s actions?


First thing's first- I'm far from an economist, so the entire tariff discussion is out of my wheelhouse. But from my understanding, [a "tariff" is a tax on imports](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-tariffs-trump-canada-mexico-what-to-know/#:~:text=At%20the%20simplest,focused%20think%20tank) that's paid for by the buyer (like Walmart) when imported into the US. By that logic, [tariffs increase the price of goods](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-tariffs-work-rcna190336#:~:text=President%20Donald%20Trump,of%20higher%20prices) and buyers *usually* pass that price increase onto the consumer? This entire topic raises a lot of unknowns, [rising inflation](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/03/wall-street-economists-react-trumps-tariffs-to-raise-inflation-and-lower-economic-growth.html) being one of them.

With that context I'm curious about the retaliatory tariffs. [Canada](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-02-01/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-china), [Mexico](https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/mexico-president-orders-retaliatory-tariffs-on-us-blasts-us-suggestion-of-criminal-alliances-in-her/article_7f34e80a-e109-11ef-9e61-4fb88313156b.html), and [China](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jgk4760y9o) have all announced retaliatory tariffs on US goods. If my understanding of tariffs is correct (from my admittedly biased sources), this impacts foreign consumers more than the US exporters?

What do these countries stand to gain by imposing tariffs on US goods? And how does it affect the US?

What impact do retaliatory tariffs have?

First thing&#39;s first- I&#39;m far from an economist, so the entire tariff discussion is out of my wheelhouse. But from my understanding, a &quot;tariff&quot; is a tax on imports that&#39;s paid for by the buyer (like Walmart) when imported into the US. By that logic, tariffs increase the price of goods and buyers usually pass that price increase onto the consumer? This entire topic raises a lot of unknowns, rising inflation being one of them.

With that context I&#39;m curious about the retaliatory tariffs. Canada, Mexico, and China have all announced retaliatory tariffs on US goods. If my understanding of tariffs is correct (from my admittedly biased sources), this impacts foreign consumers more than the US exporters?

What do these countries stand to gain by imposing tariffs on US goods? And how does it affect the US?


Elon Musk with the blessing of President Trump is focusing on shutting down or derailing USAID, which has been the primary American funding source for many international NGOs. These NGOs, which lean-left, are alarmed that Musk will dismantle their initiatives and thus prevent the NGOs from being funded in the future.

Democrats have raised concerns that not only is Musk not qualified to examine USAID despite his mandate as DOGE chairman, but that he will freeze funding permanently, whether or not a court enjoins the funding pause. Moreover, many progressives have voiced a call to action to save USAID. However, such actions may be moot given that the Republicans will likely use the reconciliation bill that doesn't require any Democratic votes to defund USAID as well as enacting the GOP's other priorities such as tax cuts. That will make any court order inoperable as without funding USAID would be dead either way.

What do you think about Musk and the USAID brouhaha? Who do you think will win ultimately? How will Democrats respond? How will Republicans respond?

Is the Democrats' fight over USAID hopeless?

Elon Musk with the blessing of President Trump is focusing on shutting down or derailing USAID, which has been the primary American funding source for many international NGOs. These NGOs, which lean-left, are alarmed that Musk will dismantle their initiatives and thus prevent the NGOs from being funded in the future.

Democrats have raised concerns that not only is Musk not qualified to examine USAID despite his mandate as DOGE chairman, but that he will freeze funding permanently, whether or not a court enjoins the funding pause. Moreover, many progressives have voiced a call to action to save USAID. However, such actions may be moot given that the Republicans will likely use the reconciliation bill that doesn&#39;t require any Democratic votes to defund USAID as well as enacting the GOP&#39;s other priorities such as tax cuts. That will make any court order inoperable as without funding USAID would be dead either way.

What do you think about Musk and the USAID brouhaha? Who do you think will win ultimately? How will Democrats respond? How will Republicans respond?


*The Ordinance of Nullification* was a law passed by South Carolina in 1832 that declared the *Tariff Acts of 1828* and *1832* unconstitutional. In order to prevent a full-on constitutional crisis, the federal government ultimately resolved South Carolina's grievances by lowering tariff amounts, via the *Compromise Tariff of 1833*. Could the *Ordinance of Nullification* provide a historical roadmap for U.S. states today to band together and collectively sue the federal government over the current Canada/China/Mexico tariffs by highlighting enormous harm to their state economies? With a Supreme Court that is ever more traditionalist and states-rights oriented, might victory be possible?

Does the Ordinance of Nullification Provide a Historical Roadmap for States to Legally Challenge Federal Tariffs?

The Ordinance of Nullification was a law passed by South Carolina in 1832 that declared the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional. In order to prevent a full-on constitutional crisis, the federal government ultimately resolved South Carolina&#39;s grievances by lowering tariff amounts, via the Compromise Tariff of 1833. Could the Ordinance of Nullification provide a historical roadmap for U.S. states today to band together and collectively sue the federal government over the current Canada/China/Mexico tariffs by highlighting enormous harm to their state economies? With a Supreme Court that is ever more traditionalist and states-rights oriented, might victory be possible?


Last year, Canada agreed to purchase $14B of  US F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, with acquisition of 88 jets from 2026 to 2034.

One aspect of this question is the tariffs and apparent trade war; Canada had previously been evaluating the SAAB Gripen as well, so there is an industry-respected alternative.

Another aspect of this is reliability in the event of actual conflict between the two nations, which previously seemed impossible to contemplate. This calls to mind the intelligence information that France provides the UK during the Falklands War on means to defeat the Exocet anti-ship missile that France had previously sold to Argentina, and also that France had a kill switch that they reportedly did not share with UK.

Does Canada want to buy $14B of national defense technology from a nation that is an unreliable partner at best, with whom you now have a trade war, has made statements that intimate future aggression, and who could disable the technology in a conflict?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/07/31/these-three-companies-submitted-bids-for-canadas-fighter-competition/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/americas/canada-f-35-fighter-purchase-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Can/will Canada exit F-35 deal?


I'm concentrating on the EU in this post, as I don't know much about pensions and walfare in the US.

Recently I've been learning about demographics of Europe and EU in particular. The big problem that is frequently discussed is [ageing of Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing_of_Europe), which refers to increasing number of old people, who consume a lot of resources both in healthcare system and pensions, whilst the increase in tax payer population cannot keep the pace, leading to increased taxations with all the associated negatives for the economy.

So my question is: what can be done? We can increase retirement age (I've seen ideas of canceling pensions completely), introduce migrants as taxpayers (this is causing a lot of arguments and fuels conservative parties), or just kind of wait for 50 years to "ride the wave" of changing demographics, which to me seems rather ineffective.

Would love to hear some opinions on this matter.

What are some of the possible solutions for increased percantage of old people and associated tax pressure on younger generations?

I&#39;m concentrating on the EU in this post, as I don&#39;t know much about pensions and walfare in the US.

Recently I&#39;ve been learning about demographics of Europe and EU in particular. The big problem that is frequently discussed is ageing of Europe, which refers to increasing number of old people, who consume a lot of resources both in healthcare system and pensions, whilst the increase in tax payer population cannot keep the pace, leading to increased taxations with all the associated negatives for the economy.

So my question is: what can be done? We can increase retirement age (I&#39;ve seen ideas of canceling pensions completely), introduce migrants as taxpayers (this is causing a lot of arguments and fuels conservative parties), or just kind of wait for 50 years to &quot;ride the wave&quot; of changing demographics, which to me seems rather ineffective.

Would love to hear some opinions on this matter.


He posted this on “truth social” today:

> We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true! Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!

*(I am not linking because I know many subs are censoring links to “truth social” and twitter. It will be the first result if you google it.)*

In summary, he asserts:
1. That the US doesn’t need Canada
2. That Canada is on US-supplied life support
3. That shutting down trade with Canada will kill the country and allow it to be annexed

I assume this is why he is currently refusing phone calls from the Canadian government. He doesn’t have demands for Canada. The demand *is* Canada. But *the question* is where this goes politically.

**UPDATE**

The post I quoted has been removed from his Truth Social and Twitter account as of today (February 3rd). Now there is no posts about Canada dated from yesterday (February 2nd). Instead there is a post today hand-wavingly complaining about Canada not allowing US banks and not cooperating in the war on drugs.

The original post was on February 2nd, 8:26 a.m. eastern time. I’m far from the only person with screenshots, but DM if you would like copies for corroboration.

I checked to see if there was any media coverage of this post and/or its removal but I have found nothing. Even though I was notified to this post existing in other posts on Reddit, this apparently escaped the mainstream media’s attention…

Trump reiterated today his goal for the Canada tariffs—annexation. What is the likely outcome of this?

He posted this on “truth social” today:

We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true! Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!

(I am not linking because I know many subs are censoring links to “truth social” and twitter. It will be the first result if you google it.)

In summary, he asserts:
1. That the US doesn’t need Canada
2. That Canada is on US-supplied life support
3. That shutting down trade with Canada will kill the country and allow it to be annexed

I assume this is why he is currently refusing phone calls from the Canadian government. He doesn’t have demands for Canada. The demand is Canada. But the question is where this goes politically.

UPDATE

The post I quoted has been removed from his Truth Social and Twitter account as of today (February 3rd). Now there is no posts about Canada dated from yesterday (February 2nd). Instead there is a post today hand-wavingly complaining about Canada not allowing US banks and not cooperating in the war on drugs.

The original post was on February 2nd, 8:26 a.m. eastern time. I’m far from the only person with screenshots, but DM if you would like copies for corroboration.

I checked to see if there was any media coverage of this post and/or its removal but I have found nothing. Even though I was notified to this post existing in other posts on Reddit, this apparently escaped the mainstream media’s attention…


Traditional protests against government policies often struggle to create immediate change, especially when leaders are insulated from public pressure. However, targeting major corporations… particularly those owned by powerful individuals with political influence…could be a more effective strategy.

For example, if mass protests were organized to disrupt Tesla’s sales, could that force these billionaires to push for certain policy changes? Many argue that economic pressure is the only thing that truly influences those in power.

Would this approach work better than traditional demonstrations? Have there been historical examples of corporate-targeted protests leading to major political or social shifts?

Let’s discuss.

Can protests targeting corporations be more effective than traditional government protests?


This topic came to mind because of the recent [RFK Jr. confirmation back-and-forth with Senator Bernie Sanders](https://youtu.be/_0dc9b4g4xU?si=m3KuhSEfKzo7U8PE).

It is often the idea of those that oppose some type of universal healthcare or single payer system, that they do not want to be responsible for other people's poor health choices. Should this criticism be persuasive, or do you find it persuasive and why?

In your view of healthcare, is the "smoking for 20 years" argument a valid answer/criticism to the question, "Is Healthcare a human right?"

This topic came to mind because of the recent RFK Jr. confirmation back-and-forth with Senator Bernie Sanders.

It is often the idea of those that oppose some type of universal healthcare or single payer system, that they do not want to be responsible for other people&#39;s poor health choices. Should this criticism be persuasive, or do you find it persuasive and why?


The rhetoric and ideologies around illegal immigration seem to have taken a major shift in recent years, especially among the left.

Immigration was a bipartisan issue at one point in time, including under the Obama administration, with the common agreement being that those who enter the country illegally get deported. This is also the accepted norm and law of the land in many other countries around the world.

This seems to be a relatively new perspective for America. What caused this dramatic shift? And why are so many Americans opposed to mass deportations an in favor of undocumented immigration or support open borders altogether?

Why are so many Americans in favor of illegal immigration and opposed to deportation?


I was thinking about the similarities between the two presidents and the closest person to them, who stand a lot to gain and have undoubtedly are very influential in their decision making.  And I don't think in hindsight, many Americans and members of the Legislative Branch would still be on board for the invasion of Iraq if they knew how it would turn out- particularly regarding the no-bid government contracts with Halliburton to manage the oilfields after Saddam’s regime fell.

So I’m curious if you believe Musk is attempting to be Cheney 2.0? And if Musk were trying to do something similar to Cheney by exerting influence on the President’s policymaking, do you think the Legislative Branch would be able to prevent it in an effort to avoid a repeat of what happened during the Bush Administration? Why or why not?

If not, do you believe it is within the realm of possibility that Trump and Musk are instead working in tandem to attempt something akin to state capture? And could that be successful or will the Legislative check “their” Executive power and prevent policymaking that seems primarily to benefit Musk and Trump and clearly detrimental for the American people?

Considering the similarities between Bush/Cheney Admin. (2001-09) and the current Trump administration, do you believe Musk, who's got both $15.9 B in contracts and a couple of lawsuits with government agencies, is attempting to pull a Cheney? And if so, do you believe he could succeed?

I was thinking about the similarities between the two presidents and the closest person to them, who stand a lot to gain and have undoubtedly are very influential in their decision making.  And I don&#39;t think in hindsight, many Americans and members of the Legislative Branch would still be on board for the invasion of Iraq if they knew how it would turn out- particularly regarding the no-bid government contracts with Halliburton to manage the oilfields after Saddam’s regime fell.

So I’m curious if you believe Musk is attempting to be Cheney 2.0? And if Musk were trying to do something similar to Cheney by exerting influence on the President’s policymaking, do you think the Legislative Branch would be able to prevent it in an effort to avoid a repeat of what happened during the Bush Administration? Why or why not?

If not, do you believe it is within the realm of possibility that Trump and Musk are instead working in tandem to attempt something akin to state capture? And could that be successful or will the Legislative check “their” Executive power and prevent policymaking that seems primarily to benefit Musk and Trump and clearly detrimental for the American people?


In such a situation, to what extent could we expect the military to act based on independent judgment rather than strictly following orders? Would their response prioritize the well-being of American citizens, or would self-preservation take precedence?

If a U.S. president attempted to dismantle democracy or impose authoritarian rule, how would the military likely respond? Would they prioritize their oath to the Constitution or follow orders from leadership?


I've been wondering why he might of chosen to run for president in his 70s. Generally speaking, the United States in it's past is seen as less tolerant than the modern political climate in terms of what is socially acceptable. Do you think he would of done better or worse if he ran in say, the 80s or 90s when he was much more well liked?

Why did Donald Trump wait so late into his life to run for president?

I&#39;ve been wondering why he might of chosen to run for president in his 70s. Generally speaking, the United States in it&#39;s past is seen as less tolerant than the modern political climate in terms of what is socially acceptable. Do you think he would of done better or worse if he ran in say, the 80s or 90s when he was much more well liked?


Is there a way to prevent their government from, say, suppressing scientific research, promoting misinformation, creating concentration camps, and possibly starting war with its allies?

Or, is it doomed to end in civil war?

What can citizens do to prevent their government from implementing fascist policies?


This seems to be an idea proposed after the events of 2020. I will say that at least where I live, the local police agency, most officers in the agency have a college degree already ? So.... Furthermore, what KIND of degree should we require ? Criminal Justice ?

Should we require college degrees for law enforcement officers ?


I've been thinking about this topic lately and was curious as to other's thoughts. Once bad information became a noticeable issue online platforms went to third party fact checkers, and it seemed to work okay but during covid there ended up being a lot of tensions surrounding exactly when it was alright to remove something for being "misinformation", and who's to way what constitutes misinformation, etc.

Eventually Twitter/X had the idea to move to the community notes system, which has a good record in terms of accuracy but a debatable track record in actually stopping bad information from propagating. Now with the announcement that Meta is moving towards a community notes approach, a lot of people seem upset that they'd do this, and Zuck announcing this change has a lot of people associating the change with a move to being right wing?

What do we think is the best way to counter misinformation then? A community based fact checking system seems good in spirit, it makes it so that people can't accuse the platform of having partisan skews with regards to what's "true", but people don't seem happy with the solution. Thoughts?

What's the best way to counter bad information online?

I&#39;ve been thinking about this topic lately and was curious as to other&#39;s thoughts. Once bad information became a noticeable issue online platforms went to third party fact checkers, and it seemed to work okay but during covid there ended up being a lot of tensions surrounding exactly when it was alright to remove something for being &quot;misinformation&quot;, and who&#39;s to way what constitutes misinformation, etc.

Eventually Twitter/X had the idea to move to the community notes system, which has a good record in terms of accuracy but a debatable track record in actually stopping bad information from propagating. Now with the announcement that Meta is moving towards a community notes approach, a lot of people seem upset that they&#39;d do this, and Zuck announcing this change has a lot of people associating the change with a move to being right wing?

What do we think is the best way to counter misinformation then? A community based fact checking system seems good in spirit, it makes it so that people can&#39;t accuse the platform of having partisan skews with regards to what&#39;s &quot;true&quot;, but people don&#39;t seem happy with the solution. Thoughts?


There are many factors that influence a person's vote when choosing a candidate, whether at the local, state or federal level. But I would like to focus on the economic aspect because there are some examples of the economic situation at that time giving different winners in the elections.

Although it is too early to say what the economic situation will be like under this administration, I would like to know the level of influence they have on voters. In addition, how can the economic situation affect the 2026 and 2028 elections?

How much can the economic situation of this administration influence the next elections?

There are many factors that influence a person&#39;s vote when choosing a candidate, whether at the local, state or federal level. But I would like to focus on the economic aspect because there are some examples of the economic situation at that time giving different winners in the elections.

Although it is too early to say what the economic situation will be like under this administration, I would like to know the level of influence they have on voters. In addition, how can the economic situation affect the 2026 and 2028 elections?


What can the U.S. and other NATO countries do to make the alliance more united and stronger? Many politicians from various NATO countries criticize the alliance, arguing that some member countries bear more responsibility than others and that NATO’s role has become less relevant since the Cold War. For example, Trump criticizes NATO for placing a disproportionate financial burden on the U.S., claiming that many member states fail to meet their defense spending commitments. How can NATO countries work together to address these criticisms? Do you believe NATO is less relevant today than it was in the 20th century? What steps should be taken to strengthen the alliance?

How can NATO be improved and strengthened?


I was pondering over the results of this election and wondering why so many young men are voting for the conservative party these days.

I came across this article from 2024 and it really made me think Have Democrats Given Up on Men? - The Survey Center on American Life https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/have-democrats-given-up-on-men/

When you look at the Democratic Party home page for 'Who They Serve', they include Women specifically and exclude Men, outside of certain groupings that include them.

democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/

I'm curious what people have to say on this topic and will save my personal opinions for the comment section. Is it a wise thing for Democrats to bank on the morality of a large portion of the population rather than showing direct support, to gain votes?

Have Democrats Given Up On Men?

I was pondering over the results of this election and wondering why so many young men are voting for the conservative party these days.

I came across this article from 2024 and it really made me think Have Democrats Given Up on Men? - The Survey Center on American Life https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/have-democrats-given-up-on-men/

When you look at the Democratic Party home page for &#39;Who They Serve&#39;, they include Women specifically and exclude Men, outside of certain groupings that include them.

democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/

I&#39;m curious what people have to say on this topic and will save my personal opinions for the comment section. Is it a wise thing for Democrats to bank on the morality of a large portion of the population rather than showing direct support, to gain votes?


With RFK Jr.’s nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services sparking intense debate, it raises broader questions about how public health officials are judged—and whether scrutiny is applied consistently.

Under Xavier Becerra and Dr. Rachel Levine, obesity rates continued to rise, particularly among children. Despite obesity being one of the leading contributors to chronic disease, no major policy shifts were implemented to combat the dominance of ultra-processed foods or improve national dietary standards. Meanwhile, some argue that the approach to obesity has shifted toward body positivity and weight inclusivity rather than stricter public health interventions like dietary regulations, calorie control, or exercise-focused initiatives. Others believe that body positivity is an important movement that helps reduce stigma and improve mental health outcomes.

At the same time, Levine’s nomination was largely framed in terms of representation, as she became the first openly transgender federal official confirmed by the Senate. Critics argue that this emphasis on identity shielded her from scrutiny over her policies or personal health, while others see it as an important milestone in diversity and inclusion. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. is facing an aggressive confirmation process, largely due to his views on vaccines and alternative health approaches. This raises a question: does political or social alignment influence how much scrutiny a public health official receives?

Was the level of scrutiny RFK Jr. faced during his confirmation hearing proportional, especially when past health secretaries like Rachel Levine and Xavier Becerra received far less aggressive questioning despite overseeing rising obesity rates and unaddressed concerns about processed food?

Public Health, Body Positivity, and Political Scrutiny—Where Should the Line Be Drawn?


It’s been argued that tariffs cause things to cost more. If trump’s tariffs do take effect and prices rise, are they ever likely to come back down?

We’ve seen before prices increase during periods of inflation and rarely ever do they come back down, but rather stabilize. Does this indicate that if we go through another dramatic period of inflation due to tariffs those higher prices will be the new norm going forward?

Prices after tariffs. Do they increase and stay where they’re at or come back down?


It seems like project 2025 is being implemented at lightning speed so what are its weaknesses? As in, what aspects of the plan are short sighted or not well thought out? Where might the plan be held up and fail? What does this look like post-trump?

Now that project 2025 is being implemented, what are the project’s weaknesses?


In many nations, specifically European, they tend to protest by taking to the streets in mass amounts when large sweeping changes take place that are against the populace’s favor— How far and at what point will the citizens of the US have had enough with wealth disparity and political subterfuge, and take to large-scale general protests? Other than a brief moment in 2011 with Occupy, the 2014/2020 BLM protests, and the women’s march at Trump’s first inauguration there have been little protest movements. Why did they happen so much more in the early 1900s and the 1960s? Are people less educated now than back then despite access to better resources? In general I just am confused why there is so much apathy when something such as a general strike involving tens of millions WOULD be so effectual? Is it organizational issues?

Will the recent cascade of executive orders and political instability result in a general strike or more political apathy? At what point is the limit for Americans?


Much has been said about President Trump's tendencies toward authoritarianism, his desire to be a "dictator," etc. Comparisons between him and Hitler are not uncommon. For example, former Secretary of Labor accused Trump of being a "neofascist" in [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/trump-fascism-what-to-do).

And so, I'm curious how members of the subreddit feel about the possible future of the United States. You can credibly argue that the State Department's move to reportedly n[o longer issue passports to transgender Americans](https://19thnews.org/2025/01/transgender-passports-state-department/), or the recent bill out of Tennessee which would c[riminalize lawmakers voting against Trump's immigration agenda](https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-bill-would-prohibit-voting-against-trump-immigration-policies-2023749), are authoritarian in nature. Another example could be what is happening to [those who investigated Trump's alleged crimes.](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5119963-trump-administration-forces-out-fbi-officials/)

I could give more examples, but I think I've summarized the situation well enough.

And so, do you think the United States is at risk of an authoritarian takeover? How do you feel about the doom-posting many on Reddit are doing, saying another Holocaust is imminent.

One point to start from: a recent political science paper has found that democratic backsliding is frequently followed by a "U-turn" towards more democratic governance. [Read here](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2024.2448742#abstract). Could that be the United States' future?

Do You Think the US is Moving in a "Fascist" Direction?

Much has been said about President Trump&#39;s tendencies toward authoritarianism, his desire to be a &quot;dictator,&quot; etc. Comparisons between him and Hitler are not uncommon. For example, former Secretary of Labor accused Trump of being a &quot;neofascist&quot; in The Guardian.

And so, I&#39;m curious how members of the subreddit feel about the possible future of the United States. You can credibly argue that the State Department&#39;s move to reportedly no longer issue passports to transgender Americans, or the recent bill out of Tennessee which would criminalize lawmakers voting against Trump&#39;s immigration agenda, are authoritarian in nature. Another example could be what is happening to those who investigated Trump&#39;s alleged crimes.

I could give more examples, but I think I&#39;ve summarized the situation well enough.

And so, do you think the United States is at risk of an authoritarian takeover? How do you feel about the doom-posting many on Reddit are doing, saying another Holocaust is imminent.

One point to start from: a recent political science paper has found that democratic backsliding is frequently followed by a &quot;U-turn&quot; towards more democratic governance. Read here. Could that be the United States&#39; future?


I understand targeted tariffs have been used in the past to protect and develop domestic industries but how does a blanket tariff on all good from literally our closest allies?

What consequences could we expect and how soon will we see a change if any?

How are Tariffs on Mexico and Canada going to help the US consumer and economy?


There's is momentum in a *slightly*\-theoretical but still tangible movement to repeal the income tax. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the [Fair Tax Act](https://buddycarter.house.gov/uploadedfiles/118h25.pdf), the premise is around abolishing the IRS, and introducing consumption tax (in effect, removing other forms of taxes such as income, estate, etc).

There's a pretty interesting read by John Cochrane on advocacy for this that I remember reading last year: [https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/its-time-us-abolished-income-tax](https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/its-time-us-abolished-income-tax) and a more thorough read on pros and cons by Bankman & Fried, at Stanford [https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/257986/doc/slspublic/86GeoLJ539.pdf](https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/257986/doc/slspublic/86GeoLJ539.pdf) (yup, that's SBF's dad 😂)

Thought I'd open up a discussion right before everyone heads to the weekend -

* How do you feel about this prospective change? For context, other economists do argue that the Fair Tax act is insufficient, and the actual consumption tax rate will need to be much higher to keep everything running
* In the backdrop of this is the idea that our current tax code is actually too complicated/byzantine. Do you agree (if you file US taxes)?
* Impact on the tax + accounting industry in whole - mainly, how real this proposal where we might actually see serious consideration on people's careers? If you're an accountant or work in taxes - how do you feel?

Talked about this with some friends last night, so it's top of mind and would love to get some thoughts.

Income Tax Repeal: Is the Fair Tax Act feasible?

There&#39;s is momentum in a slightly-theoretical but still tangible movement to repeal the income tax. I&#39;m sure many of you are familiar with the Fair Tax Act, the premise is around abolishing the IRS, and introducing consumption tax (in effect, removing other forms of taxes such as income, estate, etc).

There&#39;s a pretty interesting read by John Cochrane on advocacy for this that I remember reading last year: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/its-time-us-abolished-income-tax and a more thorough read on pros and cons by Bankman &amp; Fried, at Stanford https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/257986/doc/slspublic/86GeoLJ539.pdf (yup, that&#39;s SBF&#39;s dad 😂)

Thought I&#39;d open up a discussion right before everyone heads to the weekend -

How do you feel about this prospective change? For context, other economists do argue that the Fair Tax act is insufficient, and the actual consumption tax rate will need to be much higher to keep everything running

In the backdrop of this is the idea that our current tax code is actually too complicated/byzantine. Do you agree (if you file US taxes)?

Impact on the tax + accounting industry in whole - mainly, how real this proposal where we might actually see serious consideration on people&#39;s careers? If you&#39;re an accountant or work in taxes - how do you feel?

Talked about this with some friends last night, so it&#39;s top of mind and would love to get some thoughts.


Edward Snowden has been in the news recently. The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting hearings to review the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence. In these hearings, there have been some intense exchanges regarding Edward Snowden.

Gabbard acknowledged that Snowden's actions were illegal, and she committed to preventing any such leaks in the future. However, she declined to call him a traitor after multiple Democratic senators demanded that she do so. Some Democratic senators seemed to feel that her sympathy for Snowden should disqualify her for the role.

In light of these hearings, it leads one to wonder, what are the Democratic views towards Edward Snowden and the mass surveillance program that he revealed? Is there widespread agreement among Democrats that Snowden is a traitor? Does the Democratic Party broadly support the surveillance programs?

Edward Snowden says that he was inspired to leak the information after watching James Clapper deny the existence of these surveillance programs. How do Democrats feel about previous attempts to hide the existence of these programs?

The Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed to have strong negative feelings towards Snowden. Is this a bias of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Or, is this a feeling that Democrats hold generally?

What is the Democratic position on mass surveillance programs? Is this view consistent with their views in previous decades? Or, have the views of the party changed from what they were during the George W. Bush administration?

In general, what is the Democratic position on Edward Snowden and mass surveillance programs?

Edward Snowden has been in the news recently. The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting hearings to review the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence. In these hearings, there have been some intense exchanges regarding Edward Snowden.

Gabbard acknowledged that Snowden&#39;s actions were illegal, and she committed to preventing any such leaks in the future. However, she declined to call him a traitor after multiple Democratic senators demanded that she do so. Some Democratic senators seemed to feel that her sympathy for Snowden should disqualify her for the role.

In light of these hearings, it leads one to wonder, what are the Democratic views towards Edward Snowden and the mass surveillance program that he revealed? Is there widespread agreement among Democrats that Snowden is a traitor? Does the Democratic Party broadly support the surveillance programs?

Edward Snowden says that he was inspired to leak the information after watching James Clapper deny the existence of these surveillance programs. How do Democrats feel about previous attempts to hide the existence of these programs?

The Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed to have strong negative feelings towards Snowden. Is this a bias of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Or, is this a feeling that Democrats hold generally?

What is the Democratic position on mass surveillance programs? Is this view consistent with their views in previous decades? Or, have the views of the party changed from what they were during the George W. Bush administration?


Athens is known for being a progenitor of democracy, but Athens did not elect most of its officials. The main ones who were would have been the strategoi, generals. Note that those who were voting were also its civil militia and they would have been soldiers too who knew what battle was like. The Boule had hundreds of members chosen by lot (having been elected in big batches, drawing some of those elected to the Boule) and this functioned as the governing senate of Athens. Juries of 201, 501, 1001, and 1501 people were also common, with the presiding magistrate also chosen by lot. They viewed elections as a risky way to govern a polity given that people could be bribed or intimidated to vote a certain way or otherwise to elect people who were risky people, but nobody could bribe the gods to choose one person over another in the drawing of lots, and an assembly of hundreds of people with time and ability to deliberate and seek information could make decisions likely to be representative of the whole people and not concerned over the short term political wish to be reelected or to otherwise climb in power.

In the modern era, we have juries, with jurors who are biased struck from the pool before the trial commences, but that isn't the only opportunity to use random chance. Some countries have turned to the idea of lottery to choose a large panel of people to deliberate on issues where it is seen that politicians might not be so good at, especially issues related to the rules of how politicians get put in office in the first place. In British Columbia, 19 years ago, a citizens assembly recommended a voting reform that was put to referendum and agreed to by 57% of voters, but the threshold had been set at 60% which was widely denounced as unconstitutional and illegitimate given that no such threshold was used to put the current system of voting into place and so why could it be legitimate to need 60% to change it?

Ireland used a citizens assembly to consider several issues, pertaining to whether snap elections can happen and if so how, how climate change reactions could occur, abortion laws, how pensions could be dealt with, and a few other things. They did divide over a few issues, but many votes actually had quite strong consensus. For months, they listened to people who presented their views, including experts, members of the public, affected people, members of the government, etc.

In principle, a citizens assembly could be given the power to compel information too from witnesses and to compel evidence too, or to demand a government official testify under oath on pain of perjury for lying or misleading them. Maybe they could do a budget analysis and plan and suggest that to the legislature or executive. They rarely have the power to make a binding decision of policy, but they may have their recommendation referred to a legislature or executive or the people for ratification. Maybe they could even be a third house of a legislature, even if it is more advisory or its decisions need approval by the people or the other houses to become policy or law.

How best do you think governance can take advantage of citizens assemblies?

Athens is known for being a progenitor of democracy, but Athens did not elect most of its officials. The main ones who were would have been the strategoi, generals. Note that those who were voting were also its civil militia and they would have been soldiers too who knew what battle was like. The Boule had hundreds of members chosen by lot (having been elected in big batches, drawing some of those elected to the Boule) and this functioned as the governing senate of Athens. Juries of 201, 501, 1001, and 1501 people were also common, with the presiding magistrate also chosen by lot. They viewed elections as a risky way to govern a polity given that people could be bribed or intimidated to vote a certain way or otherwise to elect people who were risky people, but nobody could bribe the gods to choose one person over another in the drawing of lots, and an assembly of hundreds of people with time and ability to deliberate and seek information could make decisions likely to be representative of the whole people and not concerned over the short term political wish to be reelected or to otherwise climb in power.

In the modern era, we have juries, with jurors who are biased struck from the pool before the trial commences, but that isn&#39;t the only opportunity to use random chance. Some countries have turned to the idea of lottery to choose a large panel of people to deliberate on issues where it is seen that politicians might not be so good at, especially issues related to the rules of how politicians get put in office in the first place. In British Columbia, 19 years ago, a citizens assembly recommended a voting reform that was put to referendum and agreed to by 57% of voters, but the threshold had been set at 60% which was widely denounced as unconstitutional and illegitimate given that no such threshold was used to put the current system of voting into place and so why could it be legitimate to need 60% to change it?

Ireland used a citizens assembly to consider several issues, pertaining to whether snap elections can happen and if so how, how climate change reactions could occur, abortion laws, how pensions could be dealt with, and a few other things. They did divide over a few issues, but many votes actually had quite strong consensus. For months, they listened to people who presented their views, including experts, members of the public, affected people, members of the government, etc.

In principle, a citizens assembly could be given the power to compel information too from witnesses and to compel evidence too, or to demand a government official testify under oath on pain of perjury for lying or misleading them. Maybe they could do a budget analysis and plan and suggest that to the legislature or executive. They rarely have the power to make a binding decision of policy, but they may have their recommendation referred to a legislature or executive or the people for ratification. Maybe they could even be a third house of a legislature, even if it is more advisory or its decisions need approval by the people or the other houses to become policy or law.


The 2016 election was a lull in terms of turnout but ever since then the two elections since have had the two highest voter turnout of the last 6 decades. Whilst 2024 was slightly less than 2020 it was still a high turnout at 64%.

When one looks at international comparisons this can also be seen, for example the United Kingdom has had a historically much higher voter turnout than the United States but since the Trump era this has firmly reversed. In 2020 the turnout rates were very similar and by 2024 American turnout was actually quite a bit higher than British turnout for the first time in recent history.

The same thing also goes for midterms, the last two midterms have had the highest turnouts in recent history compared to the Obama era midterms for example. So is this new high turnout a now permanent fixture of US politics?

Is American voter turnout permanently higher since the Trump era?


Listening to the questioning is confusing because Holly keeps stating that the stances Ted is referencing were from Holly’s career as an advocate but would not state if those are her current personal opinions since she is now a judge.

I have two big questions. First, is it true that Holly cannot answer Ted’s questions since she is a judge and if yes then why is Ted not reprimanded for repeatedly asking questions Holly is not allowed to answer? They are paid by our tax dollars and it seems like they are just wasting time in political theater to rile up uninformed viewers like myself.

My second question is about Holly’s statements around her previous statements being those of a professional advocate. Are professional advocates required to tell the truth and is it supposed to be understood that an advocate is just acting as if they care about the subject matter they are advocating even if they don’t themselves believe in what they are saying? Are they paid to convince others of something they may not be convinced of themselves? Are there any legal protections for the statements or actions of an advocate where they can say in a court room that they lied or committed a crime before but it’s ok because they were acting as an advocate rather than being themselves?

Why is senator Ted Cruz asking circuit judge Holly Thomas questions about stances she had previously as a professional advocate?


EDIT 3. IF ANYONE IS STILL READING THIS. I emailed my Republican House rep and got a personal response within 24 hours.  He did NOT defend Trump, said he was glad to hear my thoughts, and promised to listen to his constituents.  Could be worse!!!

Whether the idea of his impeachment scares, angers, elates or relieves you, would this be possible?

I do realize Congress would have to actually take the action.  I know how unlikely that looks.  It falls on them to take the action, no question, but if they did a thorough inquiry, is he putting himself at risk here?

There has been discussion about the constitutionality of several orders and I’m not actually trying to debate whether they’re constitutional, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened in the comments.

Would this be grounds for impeachment?

Edit: To those that said this is reason to just vote in two years:  how about making our voices heard now?  Getting petitions together, calling our reps?  Did we just stop doing that?  What if the other side is doing it?

Edit 2.  I actually think blatant Constitutional violations obvious to everyone, piling up, could be the Republican red line, even for Trump-supporting citizens.

If the President issues multiple executive orders found to be unconstitutional by the courts, even requiring them to be obeyed, could he be impeached for violating his oath to uphold it?


I’ve seen a few articles point to the fact that Baldwin gave a better answer than her opponent when asked about the farm bill. It makes sense that this helped her win, but was it the most important factor that led to her victory? Or were there other, equally important, things that helped?

What factors helped Tammy Baldwin keep her senate seat in 2024?


“The Great Communicator” and “Slick Willy” were famously charismatic so I would hesitate to label either a greater authority on charisma. Both had political success and skill so it’s not like either had less of a grasp on campaigning?

Given the seeming opposite message of each adage, which one holds true? “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”, often quoted by Ronald Reagan, and “Explanation is eloquence” which Bill Clinton is fond of.


What are your thoughts on one of trump's new executive orders? That being the order titled: [Restoring America’s Fighting Force](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-americas-fighting-force/). Below is a brief summary I wrote so let me know if you dislike how I have written this summary.

What it does: Bans the armed forces and the nation’s service academies from promoting/agreeing with any of the following topics: race or sex stereotyping, race or sex scapegoating, that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist and gender ideology. Additionally it bans the promotion of divisive concepts as defined in [Executive Order 13950](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping#page-) which includes: promoting one race or sex as superior to another, the USA is fundamentally racists/sexist, that you can be consciously or unconsciously discriminatory based upon your sex/race/etc, that a person should receive different treatment because of their race/sex, that someone should feel guilty because of their race/sex etc, meritocracy or traits such as hard work are racist/sexist or were created by one race to oppress another. The order also includes banning the promotion of:

“members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex”

And the bill disbands DEI offices within the armed forces and mandates color-blind & sex-blind hiring process.

What do you think of (one) of Trump's new executive orders - Restoring America’s Fighting Force?

What are your thoughts on one of trump&#39;s new executive orders? That being the order titled: Restoring America’s Fighting Force. Below is a brief summary I wrote so let me know if you dislike how I have written this summary.

What it does: Bans the armed forces and the nation’s service academies from promoting/agreeing with any of the following topics: race or sex stereotyping, race or sex scapegoating, that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist and gender ideology. Additionally it bans the promotion of divisive concepts as defined in Executive Order 13950 which includes: promoting one race or sex as superior to another, the USA is fundamentally racists/sexist, that you can be consciously or unconsciously discriminatory based upon your sex/race/etc, that a person should receive different treatment because of their race/sex, that someone should feel guilty because of their race/sex etc, meritocracy or traits such as hard work are racist/sexist or were created by one race to oppress another. The order also includes banning the promotion of:

“members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex”

And the bill disbands DEI offices within the armed forces and mandates color-blind &amp; sex-blind hiring process.


Michigan Senator Gary Peters [announced today](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/28/michigan-democratic-senator-gary-peters-will-not-run-for-reelection-to-us-senate-seat-2026/77985876007/) that he won't be running for reelection in 2026, because he wants to do better things, like ride his Harley. Peters is 66 and led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the last two cycles, so his retirement was unexpected. Coming on the tail of a Trump victory in Michigan, this means we'll have yet another nominal battleground Senate race next year on top of Jon Ossoff's bid for reelection in Georgia. Peters was first elected in 2014 in a landslide, right in the middle of a massive Republican wave. He was reelected in 2020 by a little more than a point and a half, defeating now-Rep. John James, who was considered one of the best GOP recruits that cycle. Notably, this was half of Biden's 3-point margin in the state that year.

Democrats have a very deep bench in Michigan, and with [Gov. Gretchen Whitmer](https://www.wxyz.com/news/whitmer-wont-run-for-open-u-s-senate-seat-but-buttigieg-reportedly-considering-it) ruling out a bid, and [Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson running for Governor](https://apnews.com/article/michigan-secretary-of-state-jocelyn-benson-governor-239c5b50c5f37f61c88e2ae0c37d2d38), the field appears to be wide open. Some of the names floated for this seat include Reps. Haley Stevens and Hillary Scholten, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and [former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg](https://www.axios.com/2025/01/28/pete-buttigieg-michigan-senate), a recent Michigander who's "taking a serious look" at the race.

On the Republican side, the party is once again looking at Rep. James, although it's possible he may run for Governor or seek reelection to his House seat instead. State Senate Minority Leader [Aric Nesbitt has already announced his bid](https://apnews.com/article/michigan-governor-republican-aacf430c69c71d00e85dfe02b8829bbd), and former GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon - who lost to Whitmer in a landslide in '22 - is also considering jumping in. Other names being floated include former Rep. Mike Rogers, who lost the race for the state's other Senate seat last year by less than half a point, and Tony Dungy, ex-head coach of the Buccaneers and Colts, a Michigan native.

Who's the strongest Democrat that could run for this seat, in your opinion? Do you think Trump's victory in November puts this seat in play, and if so, who would be the GOP's best recruit?

MI Sen. Peters is retiring. How will this impact the '26 midterms? Is this a winnable seat for the GOP?

Michigan Senator Gary Peters announced today that he won&#39;t be running for reelection in 2026, because he wants to do better things, like ride his Harley. Peters is 66 and led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the last two cycles, so his retirement was unexpected. Coming on the tail of a Trump victory in Michigan, this means we&#39;ll have yet another nominal battleground Senate race next year on top of Jon Ossoff&#39;s bid for reelection in Georgia. Peters was first elected in 2014 in a landslide, right in the middle of a massive Republican wave. He was reelected in 2020 by a little more than a point and a half, defeating now-Rep. John James, who was considered one of the best GOP recruits that cycle. Notably, this was half of Biden&#39;s 3-point margin in the state that year.

Democrats have a very deep bench in Michigan, and with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ruling out a bid, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson running for Governor, the field appears to be wide open. Some of the names floated for this seat include Reps. Haley Stevens and Hillary Scholten, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a recent Michigander who&#39;s &quot;taking a serious look&quot; at the race.

On the Republican side, the party is once again looking at Rep. James, although it&#39;s possible he may run for Governor or seek reelection to his House seat instead. State Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt has already announced his bid, and former GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon - who lost to Whitmer in a landslide in &#39;22 - is also considering jumping in. Other names being floated include former Rep. Mike Rogers, who lost the race for the state&#39;s other Senate seat last year by less than half a point, and Tony Dungy, ex-head coach of the Buccaneers and Colts, a Michigan native.

Who&#39;s the strongest Democrat that could run for this seat, in your opinion? Do you think Trump&#39;s victory in November puts this seat in play, and if so, who would be the GOP&#39;s best recruit?


In the latest election Kamala Harris received over 90% of the vote while Trump received only 6.47% of the vote. I understand that it has a huge black population and it's has lot's of universities and all but I never understand why it's that progressive. Can someone explain why?

Why is DC way more progressive than other big cities?

In the latest election Kamala Harris received over 90% of the vote while Trump received only 6.47% of the vote. I understand that it has a huge black population and it&#39;s has lot&#39;s of universities and all but I never understand why it&#39;s that progressive. Can someone explain why?


In California, conventional wisdom is that the present day post-Arnold California GOP is its own worst enemy.  I've heard it said "they could win if they made like they were in Massachussetts, but instead they make like they're in Montana."  Moderate northeastern style establishment Republican politics aren't what the California Republican base wants.

Then there's Florida.  I've heard that the Democratic Party there could win more votes if they weren't so lackluster, underfunded, and incompetent.  For example, they ran Charlie Crist against DeSantis in 2022, which wasn't the most inspiring or logical choice.

Which states could realistically be a bit more on the 'purplish' side if the minority party were to change its ways or get more money?

Of the States that are red or blue, which would be more electorally competitive if the minority party was more competent or resourced?

In California, conventional wisdom is that the present day post-Arnold California GOP is its own worst enemy.  I&#39;ve heard it said &quot;they could win if they made like they were in Massachussetts, but instead they make like they&#39;re in Montana.&quot;  Moderate northeastern style establishment Republican politics aren&#39;t what the California Republican base wants.

Then there&#39;s Florida.  I&#39;ve heard that the Democratic Party there could win more votes if they weren&#39;t so lackluster, underfunded, and incompetent.  For example, they ran Charlie Crist against DeSantis in 2022, which wasn&#39;t the most inspiring or logical choice.

Which states could realistically be a bit more on the &#39;purplish&#39; side if the minority party were to change its ways or get more money?


Starting later today, hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars earmarked for various programs throughout the country will be halted for review.  Will Trump only turn the faucet back on for the programs that meet his approval?  How is this even legal, since many of the grants have already been approved by congress?

Do you think this new "pause" on governmental spending for grants and financial aid is another example of Trump weaponizing his power?


Note that a ton of centrists generally glorify the political liberals who were politically resistant towards George W Bush’s administration, but look upon Anti-Trump liberal resistance with disdain.

This is the same with many Anti-Idpol leftists who argue that the Iraq War alone makes Bush worse than Trump, and also view his administration as pure evil while viewing both Trump and his political opposition with apathy.

If one sees the ascension of Reagan into power, we don’t see a general revile of Jimmy Carter for being too far left, but there is a general popular antipathy against Reagan for his victory and the policies he created.

How are we able to consistently view modern politics as some morally grey space,but refuse to see the voters for past politicians that are seen unfavorably today as people with legitimate concerns and goals?

How are is a lot of the general public willing to treat the political past as black-and-white, but the political now as grey?


Always fascinated about Communism as a theory and practice. need to know in about its core principles,  and their practical outcomes. Also need more juice on socialist and capitalist approaches and which is best for the society?

Which ideology or 'ism' is best suited for addressing the challenges of modern society?


While socialism is clearly stronger in Canada than in the United States, Canada never saw a socialist party become one of the 2 major parties. Yes it has the New Democratic Party but it’s in third place. What prevented a socialist party from being the major party in Canada?

Why is socialism weaker in Canada compared to Europe?


With everything happening in the U.S.—increased polarization, threats to democracy, and concerning political trends—what practical steps can we take as individuals or communities to push back against authoritarianism and create positive change? I want to understand how we can work together to prevent history from repeating itself. What are your thoughts or ideas?

What steps can we take to prevent further division and protect democracy in the U.S.?


I’ve noticed online and in real life that Elon solidifying himself as a Nazi has caused issues among right leaning communities. Half of the individuals won’t support him now and want him out of Trump’s politics and policies, while the other half seems happy to support him. His Nazi salute got the hive buzzing, but now with even more evidence of him having been and continuing to display Nazi sympathy, I’m wondering what direction the party will go? Is there worry that the Conservative Party being pro-Nazi will derail the party? The left wants nothing to do with him and it seems the right is willing to tolerate him at the least. I’m curious how moving forward will look with Elon continuing in this direction.

Has Elon caused a rift in the party?


Given the new American Regime's recent moves to remove troops from Europe, reduce funding to NATO, or exit altogether, cease support of Ukraine, more aggressive and subjugating relations with neighboring countries, and open state desire to gain territory belonging to friendly countries (Greenland), is it possible that there is space for an agreement between the USA, China, and Russia to tolerate expansions of these powers in their own local domains? The new regime in the USA seems to have a strong desire to tighten control of the broader Americas, Russia is actively engaged in a war of conquest over Ukraine, China wants Taiwan and expansion into southeast Asia. Is it possible we could see a period of expansion of these 3 superpowers and a consolidation of states over the next few decades?

Mutually tolerated parallel territorial expansion among the USA, Russia, and China?

Given the new American Regime&#39;s recent moves to remove troops from Europe, reduce funding to NATO, or exit altogether, cease support of Ukraine, more aggressive and subjugating relations with neighboring countries, and open state desire to gain territory belonging to friendly countries (Greenland), is it possible that there is space for an agreement between the USA, China, and Russia to tolerate expansions of these powers in their own local domains? The new regime in the USA seems to have a strong desire to tighten control of the broader Americas, Russia is actively engaged in a war of conquest over Ukraine, China wants Taiwan and expansion into southeast Asia. Is it possible we could see a period of expansion of these 3 superpowers and a consolidation of states over the next few decades?


Within the United States women have been pursuing higher education and careers centered around college education, how will this affect American culture/society in the future?

https://spartanshield.org/42176/feature/its-a-girls-world/

https://aibm.org/research/male-college-enrollment-and-completion/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/26/women-now-outnumber-men-in-the-u-s-college-educated-labor-force/

In your opinion how will this change society/culture, and what do you predict will result from this?

What cultural/societal affects will women being better educated than mean cause?


The United States is more divided than ever. And according to many sources, the United States is currently being ruled by someone who has great potential to turn the United States into a fascist regime.

With the separation of power, how likely is this to occur? Is Trump truly a fascist dictator in the making or is this fear mongering propaganda fueled by left-wing media?

Is the Trump Administration truly a fascist regime or is this left-wing propaganda fueled by fear mongering and panic?