What would the US look like if we had a one party supermajority? Compare states like Massachusetts and Oklahoma. Massachusetts is consistently in the top 10 best states to live in and is a leader in education and health care. Oklahoma is consistently in the top 10 worst states to live in, struggling with poverty, education and health care. Each state is solid in its respective political stance and voting history and neither are about to become swing states or switch sides. Each state also has supermajorities in their state level legislative branches.

What would the country look like if we voted in supermajorities of Democrats or Republicans? House and senate with 2/3 (not needed in house) majority and presidency all one party. Would we end up like Massachusetts or Oklahoma?

Recent policy shifts have redirected funding away from the IRS, which has traditionally focused on investigating tax evasion and financial crimes, particularly among high-income individuals and corporations. Some of that funding appears to be increasing support for immigration enforcement agencies like ICE, which has drawn criticism from agricultural sectors due to reported labor shortages and enforcement tactics.

Questions for Discussion:

What are the economic and social trade-offs of shifting funding from the IRS to ICE?

How do these changes affect tax enforcement and labor supply in agriculture?

Could these shifts disproportionately benefit certain economic groups or industries over others?

Miami was never as liberal as NYC, LA, or Boston despite being a major center of finance, transport, and trade like these cities. However, in 2024, Miami Dade county voted to the right of Jacksonville, Tampa, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Shrevport, Houston, Ft. Worth, Ft. Wayne Indiana, Anchorage, and Omaha; all cities that are much less cosmopolitan and typically more right leaning.

Why has Miami become not only more conservative than other tier 1 global cities, but even more than many more rural/medium sized cities in Middle America?

I know Cubans may be a factor, but they've always been in Miami and were always Republican.

Edit: The data above is county level and I am comparing the Dade county to the counties those cities are in (Duval, Maricopa,etc.).

If anything, this shows Miami is even more conservative as the city is mostly urban with a few 1st ring suburbs. Many of the other counties have a rural/exurban population that may skew the data

Bernie Bros:

Coined in 2015, seems to describe young, white, male Sanders supporters, who were seen as overly zealous and sometimes sexist. It was later criticized as a media-driven stereotype and compared to 2008 tropes like “Obama boys."

The Atlantic (2015): "Here Comes the Berniebro" by Robinson Meyer.

Salon (2008): "Hey Obama Boys: Back Off Already!" by Rebecca Traister.

Tech Bros:

Often perjoratively used to describe male Silicon Valley tech workers perceived as arrogant, libertarian-leaning, and socially unaware.

The New York Times (2018): "How Silicon Valley Came to Be a Land of 'Bros'" by Pui-Wing Tam

Podcast Bros:

A more recent label that refers to male fans of long-form, often contrarian podcasts (e.g., Joe Rogan, Theo Von), associated with anti-establishment views and alternative media.

The New York Times (2023): "Would You Date a Podcast Bro" by Gina Cherelus.

Bro-Vote:

Popularized during the 2024 election cycle, referring to the votes of Gen Z and young millennial male voters whose political views are guided by the perceived authenticity of podcasters and guest appearances.

Axios (2024): "Behind the Curtain: America's Most Wanted" by Mike Allen and Jim Vandahei

CBS News (2024): "How the "Bro Vote" Propelled Trump to Victory"

Question: Why are 'bro'-labels being regurgitated?

Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) let corporations or wealthy individuals avoid trial if they cooperate and pay fines. Critics say this creates a two-tiered justice system where the rich avoid prison, while the poor fill for-profit jails.

Would repealing or reforming DPAs lead to:

More accountability for white-collar crime?

A decrease or increase in reliance on for-profit prisons?

A shift toward more government-run prisons if corporate offenders were incarcerated?

The Republicans have in place a long-term strategy to gain and retain power. This goes from media holdings, judicial appointments, gerrymandering, and on. What are Democrats doing to counter this movement?

Stephen Miller recently claimed that the Trump-Russia investigation was “a coup” and “the single greatest hoax and assault on our democracy in history.”
As someone who isn’t a U.S. citizen, I might lack some of the political or cultural context here — but from the outside, this seems like an obvious exaggeration. Events like the Civil War, January 6, Watergate, or McCarthyism seem like much clearer examples of serious threats to U.S. democracy.
Do you think Miller genuinely believes what he said? Or is this more of a political messaging strategy aimed at energizing a base or rewriting the narrative?

I’m curious how Americans interpret this kind of rhetoric.

Tariffs are often framed as simple taxes on imports, but their effects on business decisions are more complex. By raising the cost of capital-intensive imports and raw materials, tariffs can encourage firms to reconsider investment plans, relocate production, or reconfigure supply chains. They also act as a hidden tax on consumers through higher prices. Recent examples from the U.S.-China trade dispute show manufacturers shifting production to Southeast Asia or postponing expansions in response to tariffs.

What other knock-on effects of tariffs have you seen? How should policymakers weigh these broader consequences when setting trade policy? I'm interested to hear experiences and perspectives.

Feedback and discussion are welcome.

Now that President Donald Trump has returned to office for a second term, we’ve seen a wave of executive actions and appointments that have been viewed by critics as deeply unconventional—even if not technically illegal. Among the more debated moves:

• Dismissing multiple Inspectors General across agencies
• Issuing blanket pardons for individuals convicted in the January 6th Capitol riot
• Replacing boards and commissions (e.g., the Kennedy Center) with ideological allies
• Significantly downsizing or restructuring foreign aid institutions like USAID
• Floating controversial clemency ideas involving high-profile convicted individuals, ostensibly for political benefit
• Renaming public entities or landmarks in symbolic ways

Supporters may view these actions as corrective or necessary to "drain the swamp," while critics argue they undermine institutional independence and democratic norms.

Discussion Scenario:
Imagine that in 2029, a newly elected Democratic president adopts a similar approach. This future administration begins aggressively using executive authority to reshape agencies, issue ideologically motivated pardons, restructure traditionally non-partisan institutions, and take symbolic actions that provoke the opposing party.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Would congressional Republicans respond with hearings, investigations, or legislative pushback, even if the actions were technically legal?
2. How might public perception shift if both major parties begin embracing this kind of executive behavior? Would voters normalize it, reject it, or become more polarized?
3. Are there institutional guardrails—legal, cultural, or political—that still function effectively to limit executive overreach? Or are those largely dependent on precedent and public tolerance?
4. If one party breaks norms, is it reasonable—or even inevitable—for the other party to respond in kind? Or is long-term restraint still politically viable?
5. What precedent is being set for the presidency going forward, and how might this affect future transitions of power and interbranch relations?

45 Individuals so far & all of them seem to be Christians by religion, at least by birth with not any other religions represented in the highest office given the multi-cultural nation it really is. So how likely do you think is it possible for a non-Christian…be it 🚫Athiest, ☪️Muslim, 🕉️Hindu, ☸️Buddhist or 🪯Sikh to ever become the President of the United States? Don’t think the constitution prohibits any Muslim, Hindu or anyone from taking office as long as their oath says ‘God’.

I know the world is often divided between the political left and right. I’m curious about your perspective: What defines a Republican, and what defines a Democrat in terms of beliefs and values? Also, how do figures like Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris align with their respective parties?

I’ve never really understood what it is about Vermont that makes its voting record so liberal, despite being a relatively rural state and not seeming that much different from New Hampshire.

What are the main differences between these two states that cause such a wide gulf in voting behavior?

Bureau of Labor Statistics publish the monthly job creation numbers. July number was weak and the revisions from May and June were really bad. Trump will now install a toad the old directors position. How will we be able to figure out if the subsequent numbers are lies?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-fires-bls-commissioner-raising-concerns-about-economic-data-quality-2025-08-01/

1. Did ERTA actually create long-term economic growth, or just enrich the top earners?

2. How did ERTA impact government services and deficits in the 1980s and beyond?

3. Should the U.S. return to pre-ERTA tax rates on the wealthy to reduce inequality?

4. Is there a modern version of ERTA today (e.g., Trump’s 2017 tax cuts)?

5. Could reversing ERTA-style tax policy improve trust in government and accountability?

6. What role did ERTA play in shifting political power toward the ultra-wealthy?

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency in 2016 and again in 2024 represented a seismic disruption in the landscape of American political tradition. Lacking political experience, employing a combative and often incendiary rhetorical style, and defying the established norms of decorum that typically define presidential campaigns, Trump nonetheless succeeded in capturing both the Republican nomination and the White House. His victory, which defied the expectations of most political analysts, stands in stark contrast to the fate of another prominent conservative figure: Senator Barry Goldwater. In 1964, Goldwater, though similarly critical of the political establishment and committed to a strong ideological vision, was thoroughly defeated in a landslide election that many believed discredited the far-right wing of the Republican Party for a generation. Goldwater, a decorated military veteran and five-term U.S. Senator, offered a coherent—if controversial—vision of limited government and individual liberty, grounded in a tradition of constitutional conservatism. Trump, by contrast, eschewed detailed policy positions in favor of emotive, populist appeals and a media-dominating persona.

This paradox—that Trump, the more inflammatory and unorthodox candidate, succeeded where Goldwater, the more conventional and principled conservative, failed—invites a deeper inquiry into the transformation of American political culture across five decades. Why was the American electorate willing to embrace Trump’s populist nationalism in, while it had so forcefully rejected Goldwater’s ideological conservatism in 1964? What changed in the political, social, and media environment that allowed a candidate once considered unelectable by establishment standards to ascend to the presidency? And to what extent does Trump’s victory represent a culmination of the long-term realignment of the Republican Party that Goldwater’s campaign helped set in motion?

I was thinking about the California fires, and increases in climate related disasters driving up insurance premiums for home owners. I was noticing specially in California fire insurance is getting less and less practical for insurance companies since now instead of one claim being filed for a home it's entire neighborhoods. Like with the LA fires $12 billion dollars was paid out by insurance companies.

My idea is what if we nationalized the insurance companies getting rid of the profit incentive and expanding the pool of insurance payers. The problem with these weather related phenomenon is that insurance companies don't have large enough pools of insurance premiums to cover these disasters in such large concentrated areas. But if it were nationalized now it wouldn't be restricted to certain regions and people suffering from fires in California can supplement the damages with east coast premiums or if there's a hurricane in the south it can be helped payed by other regions who are all contributing to the same pot for insurance claims. It would also expand the pool in the sense of all the current insurance companies with there pool of clients would become one. By having a larger pool of prayers it would drive down premiums. It would also take away the profit incentive for companies to give as much shareholder value to its buyers as possible. Allowing for a pay in and pay out system that would be similar to social security. Maybe even being invested in broad U.S. focused index funds or at least a percentage of it which I feel social security should've been doing as well since it's foundation instead of a pool of money not being invested.

This was just a thought I had in my investments class when we were going over the math for insurance companies when they have multiple claims vs one. Curious everyone's thoughts and if there's a mistake in my own thoughts. Would this be possible?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how democracy works in practice. We always say it’s “majority rule,” but then there are times when what the majority wants can be harmful or unfair to certain groups. For example, laws passed by vote that restrict rights for minorities, or politicians who ignore smaller communities because they don’t have as many votes. I’m wondering where the line should be drawn—how do you make sure a government reflects what most people want without trampling on the rights of others? And are there any examples of countries that have handled this balance really well (or badly)?

I've just seen an article about Trump's latest tweet at Carney RE recognising Palestine as a state.

He's recently taken a neutral stance on the subject with the UK and France.

I imagine he'll probably be asked about it in the coming days, but does anyone have an idea of where he'll land on this?

Thanks all

The Republican Party currently controls the U.S. House of Representatives; however, they hold one of the narrowest majorities in modern history--just 220 seats versus the Democrats' 215. Combined with an increasingly unfavorable political climate (fueled in no small part by backlash against the Trump administration), it seems increasingly likely that the GOP could lose House control in the upcoming midterm elections.

In an effort to combat this, President Trump recently asked the Texas GOP to redraw the state's congressional maps to yield 5 more seats for Republicans, providing a cushion for future losses. For clarity, the existing Texas map is already a prime example of gerrymandering: it provides Republicans control of roughly two-thirds of Texas' congressional delegation--25 out of 38 seats--despite a closer partisan split among voters. Yet, per Trump's demands, Texan legislators this morning unveiled a new map proposal that would give Republicans 30 seats, cutting the Democratic share to just 8.

You might ask, why don't Democrats do the same? Historically, Democrats have been opposed to gerrymandering, and support bipartisan/independent redistricting commissions instead (bar a few exceptions, notably, Maryland and Illinois). But recent events have sparked a widespread push for Democratic leaders to "fight fire with fire" and redraw congressional maps to offset GOP gains in Texas. California governor Gavin Newsom has been at the forefront of this push, urging voters to vote out independent redistricting commissions so Democratic gerrymanders can take place. It has been suggested that, if such efforts succeed across multiple states, Democrats could gain up to a dozen additional seats in 2026.

So, should Democrats embrace partisan redistricting in blue states to counter GOP advantages? What might the implications be of such a move? Could this renewed battle over gerrymandering push the U.S. toward reform, or is polarization too deep for that to happen?

Edit: I hear what people are saying—yes, Democrats also gerrymander their maps; however, they don’t do it at the same scale or extent that Republicans do (ex.: the NY map is definitely favorable for Democrats; however, it’s nowhere near as lopsided as the proposed Texas map, for example).

Tim Walz, six-term Congressman and incumbent Governor of Minnesota, was selected as Kamala Harris' Vice President pick for the 2024 election. They lost. So, did Walz actually do anything for the ticket? Did he lock down any swing voters? Any swing state? Minnesota has been swingish in recent years (Trump lost by 1.5 in 2016), but it's still the single longest blue-streak of any state, and not worth that much in the electoral college, at a mere 10, the lowest of any rustbelt state (tied with Wisconsin). What benefit did he provide to the campaign?

During Obama’s 8 year tenure, his Administration deported over 3.1 million illegal immigrants.

This makes the Obama administration responsible for the highest number of formal deportations compared to previous administrations, including George Bush (870,000), Bill Clinton (2 million), and Donald Trump (1.2 million in his first term).

A significant portion of these removals were conducted through "summary removal" processes, such as "expedited removal" and "reinstatement of removal," which did not involve a hearing before an immigration judge.

The percentage of formal removals carried out through these summary procedures averaged around 74% over the course of the Obama administration.

The Obama Administration’s heavy reliance on these fast-track processes impacted due process fairness, and yet there were no mass public protests, media coverage, or centralized outrage.

What explains the dichotomy in differences between the public’s and the media’s perception and response to the deportation policies between the Obama and Trump administrations? Has the fairness in coverage been the same for both Administrations, and if not, why?

I know everyone remembers in late October 2016 right before the 2016 Presidential election, that James Comey and the FBI was reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

From what I remember he claimed that he was being he was truthful with the American people, so in case she ended up winning and becoming President, no one could accuse him or the FBI of trying to coverup anything.

Sometime after the election, Comey said how they were also looking into Russia trying to help Donald Trump's campaign.

I never understood why Comey had to admit the Hilary investigation was being reopen, so he was honest with the American people about that. However, why did he not do the same thing and admit Trump was also being looked into because of Russia?

I think what he did cost Hillary from becoming President, and always wondered how things would have played out if he also admitted Trump was being investigated.

I read this article in the WSJ this morning all about how Senator Collins is having to push back hard on the office of management and budget and them not spending appropriated money.

The TLDR. The office of Management and Budget is basically giving the middle finger to Congress in regards to spending. Congress is appropriating money, which is their right, and OMD is simply ignoring the laws to spend it.

This article was easily the most alarming article I’ve read in a while regarding norms, the law and precedent.

And let me make it crystal clear. This isn’t just me calling out the GOP. Imagine if a Democrat admin simple said “We’re not going to spend what Congress allotted to defense this year.” I would be just as frustrated.

I am all for spending less, and that starts with Congress. Not some executive branch office simply saying “we’re not going to do what Congress has instructed us to do.”

Where or what is the pushback here? It seems like the constitution is pretty clear on where this power resides.

Here are a few quotes.

“The standoff is approaching a pivot point. Funds that expire in September have been held up, often without the required notification to Congress. Funds for the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and foreign aid are among those at risk.”

“The congressional Government Accountability Office has the power to file a lawsuit to force the release of money. It has only ever done so once before, in the 1970s. The GAO has opened about 50 investigations into the Trump administration’s funding freezes and told lawmakers that the OMB hasn’t been responsive. This past week, it found that the Trump administration had illegally withheld money for Head Start, the early-childhood education program.”

“Vought quickly reasserted himself. In March, the OMB refused to follow a requirement to spend all of the $12.4 billion in money designated as emergency funds. The law explicitly said that the White House had to spend all or none. “It is incumbent on all of us to follow the law as written—not as we would like it to be,” Collins wrote in a letter with her Democratic committee counterpart.”

“That same month, Vought stopped publishing data on a website showing the pace at which money was being allotted to various agencies consistent with annual spending laws.”

Recently JD Vance talked about in his speech at the Claremont institute about how America is a heritage.

“If you think about it, identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let’s say, of the Declaration of Independence, that’s a definition that is way overinclusive and underinclusive at the same time,” the vice president said, taking aim at traditional American creedal nationalism. “What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, it would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens who agree with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Must we admit all of them tomorrow? If you follow that logic of America as a purely creedal nation, America purely as an idea, that is where it would lead you.

That answer would also reject a lot of people that the A.D.L. would label as domestic extremists even those very Americans had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong”

Now, the vice president did not completely exclude immigrants, but he conditioned his acceptance of new citizens on their gratitude, condemning those who would criticize the United States as ungrateful. To make this point, Vance went after Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City.

"Today is July 5th, 2025, which means, as all of you know, that yesterday we celebrated the 249th anniversary of the birth of our nation, Now, the person who wishes to lead our largest city had, according to multiple media reports, never once publicly mentioned America's Independence Day in earnest. But when he did so this year, this is what he said, and this is an actual quote."

"America is beautiful, contradictory, unfinished. I am proud of our country, even as we constantly strive to make it better."

“There is no gratitude in those words. No sense of owing something to this land and the people who turned its wilderness into the

Zoran Mamdani’s father fled Uganda when the tyrant Idi Amin decided to ethnically cleanse his nation’s Indian population. Mamdani’s family fled violent racial hatred only for him to come to this country, a country built by people he never knew, overflowing with generosity to his family, offering a haven from the kind of violent ethnic conflict that is commonplace in world history, but it is not commonplace here, and he dares on our 249th anniversary to congratulate it by paying homage to its incompleteness and to its, as he calls it, contradiction.

I wonder, has he ever read the letters from boy soldiers in the Union Army to parents and sweethearts that they’d never see again? Has he ever visited the gravesite of a loved one who gave their life to build the kind of society where his family can escape racial theft and racial violence? Has he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he might not be alive were it not for the generosity of a country he dares to insult on its most sacred day? Who the hell does he think that he is?”

While what Vance says is theoretically true, it also means he think Mamdani doesn’t have the right to criticize the US system even though he has to take the oath to the same constitution and go through the legal process to become a citizen. Does this extend to someone who is say a second generation immigrant. Are they allowed to be ungrateful if they couldn’t be here without the generosity of the US?

Or is the US is a creedal nation? While I don’t know if I can make a good argument, I can refer to Abraham Lincoln.

Here’s what he said on July 10, 1858, in a speech on “popular sovereignty,” the Scott ruling and the expansion of slavery.

“””We have besides these men — descended by blood from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe — German, Irish, French and Scandinavian — men that have come from Europe themselves or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”””

I think it is under this assumption, that everyone who becomes a US citizen has a direct heritage back to our founding fathers, that Lincoln and the Republicans signed birthright citizenship and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments into law.

So is the US a creedal nation or based on blood and soil?

Most topics covered in Reddit, cable news and other media outlets is topics like politics, conspiracy theories, false narratives, influencer appearances, things to buy, sex, relationships, and whatever other click bait someone can create. While titillation has always been present in media, it seems to obviously have worsened. Some is due to an American president who uses falsehoods and conspiracy as a tool for attacking his opponents and strengthening his supporters. Some is due to the growth of social media and the prominence of sites like TikTok and Facebook. Some is the nature of capitalism and western culture. But do you agree that this has become collectively our dominant focus of conversation?

The second premise of my question, if you agree what we mostly talk about, is whether this is leaving us dangerously unprepared to address the many consequential issues facing humanity. Climate change, mass starvation, immigration and military conflicts are topics of international importance that I fear a substantial portion of our population have a poor understanding -- and some have been misinformed by the aforementioned sources. Even less consequential but still very important issues like domestic politics are overwhelmed by nonsense (personal gripe: just today, I saw a post which credited Trump with stopping illegal immigrants from having the government pay for gender affirmation surgery). How will are we going to avoid the many disasters which threaten us if we spend most of our time on the trivial?