Political Discussion

We are trying out a new system to accommodate academic researchers who wish to engage with this sub's users. If you are a researcher, please send us a mod mail explaining who you are, what you study, and how you wish to engage with the sub. If vetted, you will be invited to supply a short message soliciting user engagement that will be added to this post. This post will be reset and reposted monthly (or as needed, if there are no research requests).

u/pelizred: Hello everyone, I am a grad student conducting research as part of my doctoral thesis on consumption habits in consumer goods. I would like to interview politically-minded individuals regarding brand boycotts. I am particularly interested to talk to anyone that has participated in boycotts or hashtag protests because of a specific brands actions, for example beer drinkers and Bud Light last year. If interested, feel free to message me directly. Should you choose to participate, any information you provide will be anonymized. Thank you!

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

Please observe the following rules:

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

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

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

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

Per AP:

Puerto Rico’s political status will be on the ballot in the general elections this November, and for the first time the island’s current status as a U.S. territory will not be an option in the non-binding plebiscite.

In the past, the current state of remaining as a territory was also listed as an option, which made it challenging to come to consensus on an option preferred by the bulk of the island's citizens

As a Territory, Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but do not participate in federal elections. With a population of 3.2 million, if Statehood is adopted they would be expected to have three or four House seats and two Senators.

Questions:

• Which way is the ballot measure likely to go?

• If statehood is selected by a clear majority, will Congress take action to admit Puerto Rico?

• If independence is selected by a clear majority, will Congress take action to grant their independence?

• If there is no clear majority, should we expect the current state will continue?

I mean, the ruling by the SCOTUS protects any president, not only a republican. If President Trump has immunity for his oficial acts during his presidency to cast doubt on, or attempt to challenge the election results, could the same or a similar strategy be used by the current administration without any repercussions? Which other acts are now protected by this ruling of presidential immunity at Biden’s discretion?

According to many Democratic elite opinion as expressed by analysts like Nate Silver and opinion columnists like NYT's Tom Friedman, Biden is now a liability to winning the presidential election against Trump. Even though they have defended Biden before the debate, now that he has been exposed as having at least difficulty expressing himself and at worst in cognitive decline as expressed in sundowning, they are ready to dump him pronto.

However, this desire to get rid of their party's candidate is unusual in that even if the trailing candidate ultimately loses in November, party faithful usually sticks with the candidate until the end. Republicans supported GHW Bush, Dole and McCain even though they were likely to lose and expressed no indicating of dumping them even though their trailed significantly.

Likewise, Democrats backed Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984 against Reagan and Dukakis against GHW Bush in 1988 even though it was predictable that their candidates would lose. There was no indication that the party should replace them either before or after the convention.

Why are Democrats, especially elite opinion, so eager to dump Biden and replace him with basically anyone from Harris to Whitmer to Newsom? Does the effort hurt Biden's chances more than it helps if he refuses to yield? What should Republicans take from this effort to on the part of Democrats?

N.B., most elected Democrats have backed Biden publicly, but several privately would rather replace him according to news reporting.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43

Earlier in February 2024, a unanimous panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the former president's argument that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution for acts performed while in office.

"Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review," the judges ruled. "We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."

During the oral arguments in April of 2024 before the U.S. Supreme Court; Trump urged the high court to accept his rather sweeping immunity argument, asserting that a president has absolute immunity for official acts while in office, and that this immunity applies after leaving office. Trump's counsel argued the protections cover his efforts to prevent the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election.

Additionally, they also maintained that a blanket immunity was essential because otherwise it could weaken the office of the president itself by hamstringing office holders from making decisions wondering which actions may lead to future prosecutions.

Special counsel Jack Smith had argued that only sitting presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and that the broad scope Trump proposes would give a free pass for criminal conduct.

Although Trump's New York 34 count indictment help him raise additional funds it may have alienated some voters. Is this decision more likely to help or hurt Trump as the case further develops?

Link:

23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov)

So, it seems that recently, since 2022, the big candidates on each side of the aisle are frequently governors. Back in 2016, the Republican candidates were known as the greatest selection of Republican candidates, and many of them were congresspeople and not governors.

So, I am wondering, a governor is an executive like the president, but not of federal interest matters, and a congresspeople is a a federal person but not someone who ordinarily runs a show in the aspect a governor does. so, does your previous political experience matter in correlation to how good of a POTUS you would be, and if so, what’s better for your resume, governor or congress?

I have heard a lot of discussion regarding the debate, and how it might've killed Biden's campaign.

How it wasn't for the people who already decided, but for the voters in the swing states that were undecided.

What can Biden even do in order to recover from this loss for the swing states.

Because on the interactive map on 538 shows that Trump is likely to win

This is my first time here. I'm also extremely green on politics. I know close to nothing about politics in general, and very little on talking points, to give you an idea.

I read an article that linked unemployment rates to a current president, and it caused me to be curious about how a residing president effects unemployment/employment rates.

In what ways can a (US) President affect country-wide job availability, if at all?

So, Thailand recently had a senate election, which was quite unique (and inefficient/corrupt) as far as I can tell, but one of the things I found interesting is that it is not a geographic-based election but an occupation-based election.

For the explainer, see:

https://www.idea.int/blog/explainer-how-thailands-senate-elections-work

Forget the Thai system, as I think it is rather stupid. If a nation-state were to have an elected Senate based on occupation (maybe by quota based on how many people do certain jobs?) what would such an election system even look like?

Cheers!

Given how virtually every Republican interview I've seen where they've been asked, 'Will you accept the results of the 2024 election, no matter the winner?', they have eluded answering in any kind of affirmative way and just given variations of 'when Trump wins, we will accept the results', it seems like they are setting it up so they can justify the use of violence again if they lose. So I'm curious, do you think there will be violence if he loses? What is the likelihood that they could be successful with a full-on coup?

Pretty much every post and article at this point is about Biden dropping out of the race, even though polls show there is no agreement on who could replace him and win.

Assume no one can replace Biden before the second debate in September. What should Biden do to reassure voters and win the election?

Getting rid of Chevron has been a conservative wet dream for the last couple of decades. I'm sure they're not going to waste any time filing lawsuits against various regulations that they want to overturn, I'm just wondering who's going to be first

The Czech Republic has a bunch of interesting policies. They did amend a rule in statute after an incident earlier this year but it seems from the reports pertaining to that shooting that the bureaucratic records and the sharing of them among departments that should have communicated who was a dangerous person wasn't done right, and the underlying policy related to who had weapons was not in doubt.

Czechia is not a hypocrite either, they have laws that allow for a lot of different kinds of personal freedom like reproductive freedom, anti discrimination laws, drug use by people is a health issue with little to do with criminal laws, and the culture around the idea of weapons being related to despotism being prevented is genuinely apparent to most people given how recently they had to deal with the Warsaw Pact (USSR), the Germans in the Second World War, and the control from the Austrians for the centuries before under the Habsburgs. Criminal sentences are not unduly harsh (and thus people wouldn't be criminally ineligible for rather petty things). While some technical details vary, the bulk of the policy is consensus and not very controversial there. Czechia did have compulsory military service in the past but doesn't now.

It basically means that there is a shall issue system for firearms, at least modern ones (like from the time of bolt action repeating rifles and onwards), with cross checks with other people to see if you are a major danger to others, and you also demonstrate being taught how to use them safely (disassembly, reassembly, that you fire accurately, that you don't drink alcohol before shooting something, stuff like that). If you bothered to learn how to use a firearm safely to begin with, it would be rather hard to fail to pass the exam. It is also coherent across the entire country (with a common criminal code too). If you want to read more on what exactly it entails, here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic . It is permissible to carry concealed weapons with a firearms license, which again is shall issue.

The rate of firearms ownership is more so that they are not exactly the cheapest things in the universe without a daily need to use them for most people, the vast majority of adults are eligible to use weapons if they wish.

It isn't technically a constitutional right to have weapons there, but it is a constitutional right to defend others and yourself with arms if the occasion occurs, and statutory law, agreed upon as a strong consensus, does endorse the right to have weapons for the general citizenry.

In the 2020 US elections, the discourse involved much more focus on foreign influence, particularly from Russia. This cycle, I haven't seen much attention given to that topic.

What do you think is the magnitude of impact from foreign influence? How much are other countries investing in destabilizing democracy? Is it a significant contributor to the global decline of democratic institutions?

Does it contribute at all to which candidates end up being their party's nominee?

What can be done to fight against foreign involvement national politics?

María Corina Machado, as an opposition leader, has put forth several ideas to address the economic crisis in Venezuela. Some of her proposals include fiscal stabilization, infrastructure investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and revitalization of the oil and gas sector. However, it’s crucial to analyze in detail how these measures might impact both the Venezuelan economy and society

Joe Biden had a bad debate. Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, independent or don’t even consider yourself political, everyone with eyes and ears has witnessed the implosion of Biden during the first presidential debate.

Whats less clear is, what is the impact of this debate? We’re out four months before Election Day. Neither Biden nor Trump will get as big of a stage with as many eyeballs as this presidential debate. There could be a second presedential debate but that’s up in the air, unless both of them (more realistically Trump) agrees to it. Without that, everything either of them does will dwarf in comparison and only attract a smaller group of partisans.

How much of what happened during this first debate will stay in voter’s minds after four months? What lasting effect will this debate have?

It’s clearly in people’s minds right now but how clear will people remember months from now? Is this a trip up Biden could recover from and still have a competitive race, or should he resign and support a Democratic successor?

Over the past year there have been multiple writers publishing opinion columns hoping for a Whitmer-Warnock ticket. After the recent debate there has been much discussion about whether Biden remains the democrats best chance to beat Trump. One argument from Biden loyalists is that switching to any other ticket at this late date would be very risky. Intuition suggests that's very true. But to have the best chance of beating Trump, democrats need need to honestly assess comparative risk. So I ask the question, between the choices of sticking with Biden-Harris or switching to Whitmer-Warnock, which option has the best chance of defeating Trump, and which option carries the greater risk?

The Comstock Laws are a series of “anti-obscenity” federal statutes on the books from the 1870s. They prevent the mailing of anything considered ‘obscene’ or ‘inciting’ and have a whole section against abortion that experts say could result in a nationwide ban on abortion pills or any materials used in a surgical abortion to be sent through the post office. The law was rendered an unenforceable zombie law in that respect when Roe v. Wade was enacted, but with Roe’s fall it is now back in play.

Yesterday I was privy to a discussion on it from a professor that stated the only reason the Comstock Laws are not being enforced today is because various relevant agency heads under President Biden have interpreted its verbiage to not directly impede abortion access, effectively not enforcing it. However, with the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron yesterday that has allowed federal courts to challenge any agency interpretation without giving said agency preference anymore, is a right wing federal judge now more likely to interpret Comstock as presently in effect based on a different reading of the law and issue a nationwide ban on abortion materials of any kind being distributed through the post office? It could be done now or after the election. If Trump wins, a friendly judge in say Texas could do so to circumvent his need to pass a nationwide abortion ban through a gridlocked Congress.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

I was watching this clip: https://youtu.be/1BqXR-Xbz70?si=X3KRVkb1u8d_VNMF&t=88 and I was curious if he is factually correct?

Given the concern many have over Biden's performance and appearance during the last debate, and the rumored panic the Democratic party is in over their 2024 candidate, are they really in a spot where they are unable to actually get a new candidate on the ballot that would apply to all 50 states?

He notes that 7 days after a caucus, citing California as an example, you could die and your name would remain on the ballot. In many states, it would have to be proven you are unfit to run in order to get swapped out.

I don't care about Jason's politicial views or party affiliation, I want to know if he is factually correct with the statements he has made per how it works with the Democratic convention.

Ostensibly, the Democrats' platform has a lot to appeal to a broad coalition of large and growing groups in the US: Women, minorities, the disabled, city dwellers, the elderly, the young, parents, the working and middle class. If this coalition could gel and be got to the polls every election, the Dems would be unstoppable. Instead, they're barely holding on against a Republican party whose platform (to the extent they have one) should be a visceral threat to those groups. It seems like the Dems are at a permanent disadvantage in American electoral politics, having to be twice as good to get half as far.

Is this a matter of policy misalignment? Are D and R voters constitutionally different, and hold their parties to different types of expectations? Is it a problem of ineffective communication? To what degree is it a function of the quirks of US election law and tradition? Is it due to a reluctance to get down in the mud with the opposition?

To what degree is there a consensus diagnosis of the problem(s)? What, if anything, are they trying to do about it?

Most of the discussion so far has been around whether Biden can still win. After his catastrophic debate performance and sagging poll numbers there has been a lot of fear that there is nothing he will be able to do to change the dynamics of the race.

But let's set the electability argument aside for a minute. What does everyone think about the actual job of President. Regardless of the election in November, Biden is still the President for the next 6 months and if he wins he will be in office until 2029. Meanwhile, conflicts around the world rage on and threaten to get worse, domestic politics are a mess and the planet is only getting hotter.

Do you think Biden still has what it takes to do the whole job? Including negotiating with world leaders, responding to emergencies at all hours of the night, dealing with congressional leadership and everything else we expect to do?

Note: I'm not interested in a discussion about Trump's fitness and I think just saying Biden's team can do everything for him is a cop out. I'm wondering what you think about Biden, the man himself, and what makes you think he is or isn't up for another go.

As you may have heard, today the Supreme Court handed down a 6-2 (with Justice Jackson having recused herself due to prior involvement) decision along the usual lines that essentially overturns the 40-year old Chevron deference principle.

The particular case involved a fishery that was being mandated to pay the cost of federal observers on boats, a decision made by the National Marine Fisheries Service to deal with budgetary constraints.

The Chevron deference principle, as I understand it, allows federal agencies some leeway in how they create and apply rules, where congress has provided no guidance or ambiguous guidance. Even with the Chevron principles, if the law is clear, agencies cannot overrule it. It only matters when there is a gap in congressional directive. The name comes from a case in 1984 where the court at the time established the rules for interpreting agency scope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

Proponents of the Chevron deference principle claim that it allows agencies to function smoothly and use their expertise -- that neither congress nor the courts is likely to have -- to do their jobs effectively. They believe that the end of Chevron will significantly limit the federal government's ability to do its job as a regulator, threatening all sorts of things, like consumer safety.

Critics say that it gives agencies broad power that is neither constitutional, nor provided by congress. This overreach cannot be checked by the courts and thus emboldens federal agencies to do things that may be beyond the intent of congress and thus of the electorate at large.

Here is the SCOTUS blog summary of the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

I would like to see what people think we can expect after today's ruling. Are the pro-Chevron concerns overblown? Or is this a massive change that might usher in a new era of federal government ineffectiveness? What can congress or the president do at this point to resolve the issue? How might this effect the 2024 election?

Gun Culture in the US has been viewed as an inherently right-wing subject for a while originating in the 90s with non-racial gun control measures. However, gun culture in recent years has shown itself as potentially surviving outside of the right circle like with more progressive sectors adopting them for their own interests and self defense.

This has been noted in LGBT circles https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/02/29/lgbtq-gun-owners-are-breaching-the-right-wing-arms-bubble/

And Minorities https://www.axios.com/2022/04/23/guns-firearms-people-of-color

Is it possible the US gun culture will outlast its current right wing ties? If so, do you have any theories on what this could look like in future political eras?

I’ve been wondering if the surge in fundraising for Biden following a debate where he appeared disjointed and incoherent, while Trump appeared authoritative despite lying, is not indicative of genuine support or success?

Could it reflect a reactionary effort by Biden's core supporters, driven by fear and a sense of urgency to repair perceived damage to his campaign?

Is this spike in donations is more about panic and the perceived threat of a Trump victory than an endorsement of Biden’s performance or potential?

No one seems to have brought this up because 1) people only care much more about the debate and 2) people who watched the state of the union 2024 were too focused on that one woman with the entire MAGA getup.

Biden sounds SO MUCH better in the state of the union address only 3 months prior. He has minor stutters that he's always had, but he is extremely energetic, and everything he says is understandable and clear (I watched the entire thing start to finish). Even this was because the SOTU is scripted while the debate is not, this does not account for the difference in his voice and energy between the two.

What could have happened in 3 months for him to have such a decline? Was he just having a bad day during the debate? Was he ill? This honestly seems like a Nixon v. Kennedy situation, but obviously we can't say anything for sure.

Links for anyone who is interested:

full speech

"best section" of the speech

The first Presidential debate of the 2024 campaign has concluded. Trump evaded answers on many questions, but Biden did not show the energy he had at the State of the Union

While Biden apparently has a cold, will that matter, or will his debate performance reinforce age concerns?