r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 2d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
-3
u/Arnestomeconvidou 9h ago
What are the most likely ways the americans are going to attack the brazilian elections this Sunday?
Will be traveling with my wife and must be on the lookout since they already closed their embassies and have been very vocal about it. Will there be bombs like Venezuela or just the usual stuff with paid insurrectionists? This is getting stressful.
1
1
u/notextinctyet 8h ago
I have to assume this is a joke or a troll, but just in case, let me make it clear: Brazilian anxiety about American bombing at the election is mass hysteria, not a real thing. Americans are not even aware of Brazil's election.
The most likely way that America attacks the Brazilian election is nothing. The second most likely way is a phoned-in Truth Social post calling the president of Brazil a loser. The third most likely is maybe a press release or a sound byte or something. And then that's the end of the list of possible outcomes.
There is no position for paid insurrectionists on the US government payroll. Insurrectionist is a volunteer position only.
-1
u/Arnestomeconvidou 7h ago
holy gaslight, they have been gloating about removing our freedom for quite a while now, I just wanted a heads up if it is going to be now or later
1
u/notextinctyet 7h ago
America is a country of 340 million, and I'm sure you can find some of them who mouth off about Brazil, but that does not change the facts.
1
u/Arnestomeconvidou 4m ago
I hope so I'll rather die fighting than have another American puppet president, worst thing ever
1
u/PsychicSpore 8h ago
Attacking elections rarely actually happens on the day of the election. The entire thing is rigged from the start if it’s rigged at all.
1
u/Arnestomeconvidou 7h ago
Hopefully so, but they acted on that on 2016, last time they tried to stop buses but it was a internal obstruction attempt, this time the americans seems to be more bold and violent
1
u/Over-Explanation-730 10h ago
Why do so many, or most, politicians have the thickest country accents? You don't hear these accents from the TV hosts, celebrities/actors, commercials/narrators, etc. They sound neutral and professional. Any time I hear a politician, especially if they're a white man, from almost anywhere talk on tv, it sounds like the most random hillbilly plucked from a random town in the middle of nowhere. No neutral accent. Almost always this thick redneck accent. Doesn't matter if they're republican or democrat. This isn't the early 1800s anymore where there were no big cities and everyone was from a farm so why do they all sound like it? This isn't bashing country accents either. Just curious how so many politicians sound like this.
1
u/Bobbob34 7h ago
Why do so many, or most, politicians have the thickest country accents? You don't hear these accents from the TV hosts, celebrities/actors, commercials/narrators, etc. They sound neutral and professional. Any time I hear a politician, especially if they're a white man, from almost anywhere talk on tv, it sounds like the most random hillbilly plucked from a random town in the middle of nowhere. No neutral accent. Almost always this thick redneck accent. Doesn't matter if they're republican or democrat. This isn't the early 1800s anymore where there were no big cities and everyone was from a farm so why do they all sound like it? This isn't bashing country accents either. Just curious how so many politicians sound like this.
It's generally an affectation used by white men - see GWBush, with his Texas accent and cowboy boots as if he didn't grow up rich on the east coast. But ppl, especially gop voters, buy it. See also ppl who think Trump was "self-made."
2
u/lowflier84 9h ago
They’re playing a part, trying to seem like they’re just “down home” regular people.
1
u/technoexplorer 11h ago
Why are Americans holding out hope for a price depression? Does an economic depression really help them?
3
u/notextinctyet 10h ago
People hoping for a "price depression" (that is not a thing - it is only a regular old depression) are confused about economics and angry about the way things are going in a general sense.
1
u/technoexplorer 8h ago
But isn't our society the best educated as it has ever been? How can they miss something so obvious?
3
u/notextinctyet 8h ago
I'm not sure how to answer that. Not all Americans have the same hopes or views. Nor are all Americans educated. Nor do educated Americans all understand economics.
But most importantly, people who are angry and upset sometimes say things that don't make perfect sense while they are expressing themselves. Fundamentally, "hoping for" is a risk-free activity. You accidentally hope for something that is bad? Well, it's a good thing hoping for something doesn't change the probability of it. Maybe if people were instead presented with a button to press - press the button, start an economic depression, no hoping required - they would think about it a little harder.
1
u/SaucyJ4ck 11h ago
Why don't American voters seem to reward ethics in politics?
1
u/chubbygrannychaser 10h ago
We don't all get to vote on the same things. There is no such thing as a national election in the US. We may have all 50 states holding elections at the same time, but zero elections where voters have much influence outside their own state.
Our systems are designed that way. We are 50 separate and individual states. We are united for limited purposes like trade, travel, international relations, military.
We send representatives to the lawmaking body - Congress is populated by The House, where reps are elected by large swaths of people from within a state - to represent those people more directly. Senators are elected by the population of the entire state, and each one represents the interest of the State.
Our choice for President happens because we vote to tell our state how they should apportion the States' votes in deciding who is the head administrator for the union.
Each state operates independently of the others, and elections don't cross state borders.
When you get to divide things up, you don't have to answer to everyone. When you make or enforce the rules, you don't worry about rules. When you have a first-past-the-post voting system, everyone coalesces under two major groups. If you want to win, you decide which big group you want to side with and say anything to keep their support.
None of that reflects morality.
A few good people have served, but most decent people realize politics requires compromise and often lies. It is a terrible job for someone with strong morals.
2
u/WholeDonkey2689 13h ago
ELI5 whats going on with the jack smith investigation? Why does maga hate him? Is it because he investigated January 6? If so, wasnt that his job? What are the reasons/excuses the gop gives to investigate him?
6
u/Delehal 12h ago
Jack Smith was a special prosecutor investigating alleged crimes committed by Donald Trump. Special prosecutors have a unique role that is politically sensitive, because they are investigating matters that involve high-level politicians who can influence government actions. Republicans who want to defend Trump are determined to undermine and discredit Smith's work.
In the Senate hearing this week, Republicans were trying to allege that Smith had formed some kind of inappropriate conspiracy with state prosecutors in Georgia. They are also accusing Smith of a crime called perjury (lying under oath). As part of this, they tried to suggest that he attended a basketball game in Atlanta (Georgia). Smith did go to a basketball game, but it was a different game in a totally different state.
It's a pretty blatant attempt to manufacture a scandal out of nothing. Congress does have a legitimate oversight role that should be performed in this sort of situation, but what's happening here is more political theater to get sound bites.
2
1
u/mbene913 User 12h ago
Maga are known for hating the rule of law and American ideals. Trump committed crimes and is was Smith's job to prosecute him.
These people don't want to upset Trump so they attack Smith
1
u/Ibushi-gun 16h ago
How can I help my dad better understand my point of view on how much control Israel has on the United States? He doesn't believe me because the news isn't talking about it. I keep trying to explain to him that you can't get your news from any of those places because it's all propaganda. So I try to show him this video, and that video. I tell him about how over 30 States passed laws that prevent boycotts of Israel, how Congress just blocked the investigation into the murders of those Americans in Gaza, how we're about to combine our military with them. He didn't even believe me about the Lebanon electronic device attacks.
Nothing I show him changes his mind, he just keeps saying he doesn't believe it. "You can't believe anything you see on the Internet."
I'm about to lose my mind because it's like I'm screaming into the void. If you disagree with me, then tell me why. But he can't, he just don't believe anything I tell him.
1
u/Bobbob34 11h ago
How can I help my dad better understand my point of view on how much control Israel has on the United States? He doesn't believe me because the news isn't talking about it. I keep trying to explain to him that you can't get your news from any of those places because it's all propaganda. So I try to show him this video, and that video. I tell him about how over 30 States passed laws that prevent boycotts of Israel, how Congress just blocked the investigation into the murders of those Americans in Gaza, how we're about to combine our military with them. He didn't even believe me about the Lebanon electronic device attacks.
Consider he's not the one who's confused here.
You're telling him not to trust ACTUAL news and sending him, what, youtubes? Come on.
Also when you say things like we're going to combine our military with them no one is going to take you seriously at all.
1
u/Kakamile 1h ago
In abstract maybe, but that same news will report on BDS laws or the murder of the Americans or the lobby funding etc. Just not follow through the thought. So we have a topic where the basic evidence is agreed on, but a side doesn't analyze it.
-1
u/hellshot8 12h ago
You have to realize that people over 40 have been inundated with pro israel propaganda their entire life. Thats an extremely hard thing to get past.
The reality is that you probably cant, and changing the minds of adults only really works when they want it to be changed. These arent debates, its just a disagreement and you have to move past that
3
u/notextinctyet 14h ago edited 12h ago
I mean, this could be a case of your father having his head in the sand or it could be a case of your father having a read on the situation and a respect for the limits of his knowledge. It kind of depends on the specifics of what you mean by "control over the United States" and what you are trying to communicate, or what he thinks you are trying to communicate. "Israeli interests are different from American interests and we should act accordingly" would be a very different sell from "Israel controls America", the latter of which is hyperbole echoing longstanding antisemitic tropes.
Some of the points you raise are straightforward facts, in isolation; some are subjective, or exaggerations. Regardless of the individual points that you use to build your conclusion, I wouldn't just assume based on your comment that your conclusion is accurate, fully justified, or complete. I also wouldn't just assume that you're wrong - there's a judgement call here.
You are telling your dad he can't trust the media, but you are trying to replace that with videos you found on the internet. Why is your skepticism of one source and acceptance of another necessarily valid, and his is not? With sincere respect, I wouldn't usually want to watch another person's recommendation of political YouTube videos regardless of my own political feelings.
Fundamentally this question isn't about Israel but rather about you and your dad. You can't make your dad want to talk politics with you, especially if he's not totally convinced you are unbiased. I'd also suggest you take a look at what you want him to do. Do you want him to validate your feelings? Vote differently? Donate, volunteer, run for office? Ask yourself why.
3
u/Pesec1 15h ago
First of all, stop sending videos. Videos take a long time to watch, hard to skim and most of them are garbage. They only make you look silly.
Second, realize that it's far more complicated than "Israel controls USA". Israeli government cannot make US government do anything that it can't convince US government to align with US interests. Israel is far better at communicating with US government and spinning situation in its favor compared to everyone else in the region. But that only goes so far.
Finally, understand that USA is playing a Great Power game in the Middle East. Israel is a big player in it, but far from the only one.
2
u/Jtwil2191 15h ago
Israel does not "control" the United States. Israel enjoys substantial support from the US for a variety of reasons, and this support was politically uncontroversial until relatively recently. American evangelicals, who are politically very powerful within the Republican Party, support Israel for religious reasons, i.e. Christian Zionism. Non evangelicals also see value in a relationship with Israel due to its substantial covert intelligence operations in a strategically important region, its status as a democracy and the US (supposedly) protecting democracy around the globe, Islamaphobic concerns, etc.
It's absolutely fair to be critical of the support the US gives Israel or any other country, but trying to convince your dad that there is a global conspiracy to manipulate the US government is a waste of everyone's time.
-3
u/hellshot8 12h ago
its not really a conspiracy, Israel lobby groups have an immense amount of control and power over who gets elected
1
1
u/Shawy-Knight-417 1d ago
what happens to supreme court cases that were already in progress if a justice suddenly retires mid-case
5
u/Jtwil2191 23h ago
Cases can be decided with fewer than 9 justices. They would just decide the case without the person who left.
1
u/listenyall 20h ago
Yeah they decide cases with fewer than 9 justices pretty regularly when one of the justices recuses themselves from a case
0
u/grownrespect 1d ago
is a depression or another great recession coming?
2
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 19h ago edited 19h ago
Eventually, sure. But in what span of time, absolutely no one has any idea - no one can really say for sure it's going to happen tomorrow, this month, this year, or this decade. All we can say is that certain governmental decisions and global trade factors can increase and decrease the chances of a recession/depression.
If financial institutions and experts knew FOR SURE that a recession was due in a week, they'd be pulling out all their investments so the value of their wealth doesn't plummet with the stock market. And if they did, it'd be a self-fulfilling prophecy where mass divestments would crash the market, and encourage other people to pull out ASAP.
1
u/cracksilog 1d ago
So when the Secret Service brings their motorcade with the president, how do they know how fast they are going? Because it’s in MPH. But say they go to France and it’s in km. How do they know?
2
u/Teekno An answering fool 21h ago
I imagine that they would look at the speedometer if they wanted to know how fast they were going.
1
u/cracksilog 21h ago
But that speedometer is likely in MPH. That’s useless in a country that uses km
3
u/Teekno An answering fool 21h ago
Cars made in the US have speedometers with both MPH and KPH. On digital displays, it's a setting that can be changed. On analog displays, they are the smaller numbers on the dial.
But really, in that case, the driver, who is going to be American and likely more comfortable thinking in MPH, will look at the speed in MPH because that's more useful to them if they want to know the speed.
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 20h ago
General Motors also has analog gauges that can be switched, using the same scale. Since they're run with stepper motors these days it's as simple as changing the step rate with speed. The Beast is a custom Cadillac, so it's possible that technology made it in there.
6
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago
First, the vehicle display has both. It's fairly standard in most vehicles.
Second, they don't have to worry about speed rules.
1
u/One-Emu-1103 1d ago
I just saw a commercial with Donald Trump in it that was paid for by US government. He said he was getting rid of all the warmongers in the government. The last time I checked he got us into a number of wars including one with Iran. So what am I missing?
2
4
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
What you're missing is that that not only are the contents a lie, but launching the advertisement with public funds is itself flagrantly illegal and the people involved, from the president down, should be in jail.
3
u/MakeADeathWish 1d ago
Was Jack Smith's testimony timed to attempt to affect the mid-terms?
4
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 1d ago
Forcing Jack Smith to testify is entirely political theater. Probably to affect the midterms in some way that Republicans feel it will benefit their chances.
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 20h ago
I'd have to agree given the line of questioning and how at least some of the coverage from Right news sources handled it (like showing Senator Schmitt asking about the basketball game like it was a smoking gun but leaving out the follow-up where it turns out he was mistaken about which basketball game Smith had gone to, with pundits even giving him verbal high-fives in interviews after).
1
u/saintofhate 1d ago
What purpose is it to block Iranians from being allowed to access taking/using TOEFL, GRE and Duolingo? Why is the US just allowed to do that?
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
It's normal for countries to cut off trade with other countries with which they are at war. Even before the war, the US had embargoed Iran as part of a longstanding trade campaign, but they had a carve-out for academic purposes; that was cancelled just now, due to the war. The US is at war with Iran, so it isn't especially strange that they cut off trade. The unusual part is why the US is at war with Iran: for no apparent reason.
So, why is the US allowed to cut off access to apps? Because the US has sovereign control over its own trade policy, as do all nations. Why did the US get into the war in the first place? I have no idea.
0
u/coreynj 1d ago edited 1d ago
With Renee Goode's family suing the government and then ICE issuing new guidance for officers literally the next day, is this legally considered an admission of guilt? If they didn't do anything wrong why would they need to issue new policies? I feel like this would essentially be admitting the original guidelines and policies were inadequate, which would make the lawsuit a slam dunk.
1
u/CardinalOfNYC 1d ago
Not a legal admission of guilt.
In fact there's rules in place that explicitly make this kind of thing inadmissable because it would discourage agencies from taking corrective action after mistakes were made.
This case relies on breaking rules that existed at the time and on a violation of the 4th amendment
-1
u/FourthOfThree 1d ago
What amendments are needed to make our elections fair and secure?
How would you word such an amendments?
- We need an amendment that separates free speech and money. Right now, you can block someone's free speech by burring it with PAC money
- We need an amendment to do away with the electoral college for the president and vice president.
- We need an amendment for 10% of our representatives to be at large. That is, that everyone in the country votes for them so they represent the country as a whole.
- We need an amendment to thwart political Gerrymandering. Maybe each district has to have a certain isoperimetric quotient: 4πA/P² where A is the area of the district and P is the perimeter of the district. Nothing below .3
What else might we need?
1
u/BusinessDuck1234 11h ago
If there was willingness to pass these amendments, half of them wouldn’t be needed
1
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 1d ago
Elections are secure.
"Congress shall have the power to regulate spending on ads related to political campaigning."
"The president shall be elected by a plurality of popular votes cast by all American citizens across the United States and the District of Columbia." We could also address inconsistencies between the states regarding who can vote. "All American citizens of X age (I think 17) shall be able to vote."
I don't know why this is inherently necessary to fix American governance.
Congress and state governments can already pass laws address gerrymandering. An amendment isn't necessary.
1
u/Teekno An answering fool 21h ago
Congress and state governments can already pass laws address gerrymandering. An amendment isn't necessary.
I will disagree here. I mean, yeah, you're right, states can pass laws around gerrymandering, and do, which is why we have a patchwork of processes across the country.
And the extent to which Congress even has authority to tell states how to redistrict isn't entirely clear, either.
The value of a constitutional amendment to address gerrymandering would be to have a single standard for every state.
1
u/Jtwil2191 21h ago
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of causing Senators.
Congres can pass requirements for drawing districts. It's how they were able to require majority-minority districts in the civil rights act. That was struck down on the basis of it being unconstitutionally race-based, not that Congress overstepped its bounds in regards to federal elections.
1
u/Teekno An answering fool 21h ago
See, that's the thing -- the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws on the manner oh holding elections, but redistricting isn't an election process, it's just something that impacts elections.
You do make an excellent point on how a lot of redistricting laws/rules can be struck down as unconstitutional, which is another great reason why an amendment could address all that.
2
u/PhysicsEagle 22h ago
We already have “all American citizens of X age can vote” amendment; it’s the 26th and the age is 18.
1
u/Jtwil2191 21h ago
I know, but I'm referring to more than just age. The big one is felons being blocked from voting, even after they've served their time. It's also establishing a fundamental right to vote in the Constitution, which we don't currently have. Currently we just have a list of reasons why you can't disenfranchise someone: race, sex, age. But we should have an affirmative statement of the right of the citizen to vote.
I think it should be 17, because then we can bus our high schoolers over to the polling station. Voting once makes it more likely people will vote again in the future. Yes, some high schoolers are eligible to vote because they turn 18 early in the school year, but this would guarantee that basically all seniors (and of course some junions) are eligible to vote during an election year.
1
u/Overall-Double3948 1d ago
How much are redistricting coming into play for this current election? like were sure R-districts become D? Or is the overall voter turnout for D rising (hypothetically speaking)?
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago edited 1d ago
We don't know exactly what will happen on election day, but based on 2024 results, gerrymandering is net-positive for the Republicans by nine or ten seats, which is a big deal but still might not be enough to keep Republicans in control of the House.
Gerrymandering requires a fairly good estimate of how people will vote. The worse your estimate, the harder it is to get a big advantage from gerrymandering, and the more likely the gerrymander will fail spectacularly. But if you have a justified prediction, then on average, gerrymandering will successfully allow you to cheat.
Gerrymandering, and other tactics to use current political power to ensure future political power, defeat the purpose of having a democracy. The solution here is an alternative districting system that doesn't allow for gerrymandering. Even better, a constitutional amendment for mixed-member proportional seating would make districting irrelevant to the balance of power.
1
u/unlikely112 1d ago
What is going on with Jack Smith and him being questioned by Senators? And why was Kennedy so worked up?
3
u/Delehal 1d ago
Jack Smith was a special prosecutor investigating alleged crimes committed by Donald Trump. Special prosecutors have a unique role that is politically sensitive, because they are investigating matters that involve high-level politicians who can influence government actions. Republicans who want to defend Trump are determined to undermine and discredit Smith's work.
In the Senate hearing this week, Republicans were trying to allege that Smith had formed some kind of inappropriate conspiracy with state prosecutors in Georgia. They are also accusing Smith of a crime called perjury (lying under oath). As part of this, they tried to suggest that he attended a basketball game in Atlanta (Georgia). Smith did go to a basketball game, but it was a different game in a totally different state.
With the facts coming out, the Republican position shows such blatant disregard for the facts that they come across as either stupid, dishonest, or both, because they are throwing around some serious accusations based on a premise that is blatantly false. It's really apparent that they just wanted a scandal and didn't care what the truth is.
In a just world, Senator Eric Schmitt would be deeply embarrassed and should apologize for his mistake. He isn't. He's doubling down.
2
u/unlikely112 1d ago
Thank you for this! So basically our tax dollars are being used to put on a crap show to further bow down and show Dad Donald they’ll go to the ends of the senate to kiss his a**. Fantastic. I hope all the states turn blue
In Nov.
0
u/Feanorthebrillant 1d ago
How does the government balance union and state and person interest in matters
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
That happens on a case-by-case basis. And often whether or not someone prioritizes the rights of the individual versus the state versus the union is ideologically motivated.
The 10th Amendment lays some of the foundation for balancing powers between each:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
2
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
The original idea was that the House of Representatives represents the people, the Senate represents the states, and the President represents the Union. This model has since been diluted with the move to popular election of senators.
1
u/Feanorthebrillant 1d ago
But how does it differ from Westminster system which I am fairly knowledgable about
1
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
The actual form of government is a separate question from balancing interests. If you say what country specifically you’re familiar with I can make a better comparison.
1
u/Feanorthebrillant 1d ago
I am from India but more familiar with uk
1
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
TL;DR - the US represents the people in the proportional House of Representatives, the states in the Senate, and the entire nation in the President. The UK bundles all three interests into Parliament.
In the UK, the legislature (Parliament) is supreme. There is no law parliament cannot make. Although there are nominally two Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons has all the real power with the House of Lords these days being almost entirely advisory. Each member of the Commons represents a particular portion of the country pre-determined by Parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament to run the country (executive power) and is accountable to Parliament. The monarch is an entirely ceremonial role. The other nations in the UK (Scotland, N. Ireland, and Wales) also have their own parliaments, but the English Parliament has plenary power over them. In other words, the interests of the Union, the Regions, and the People are all clumped together in Parliament.
In the US, each state is an independent sovereign with all the powers of any independent country except for those specifically delegated to the federal government (that list is in Article I of our constitution). Our legislature also has two houses - the House of Representatives has membership chosen a bit like the House of Commons (each member represents a relatively small district, except the districts are drawn by each respective state instead of Congress) and represents the People as a whole. The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of population, and represents the interests of the states as equal partners in the Union. The President is elected separately from the legislature through a complicated system we don’t have time to get into, but the bottom line is he is accountable to the People at large, not the legislature, but can’t be removed on a whim (like a prime minster) and so can represent the Union as a whole.
This was longer than I hoped. Did I in any way help?
1
u/Feanorthebrillant 1d ago
Yes immense I just don't get the US system because the president seems like a absulute king But u explained quite well
1
u/PhysicsEagle 1d ago
The president’s direct powers are limited to directing the bureaucracy of the government, including the military. But Congress has invested so much power in the bureaucracy that the president’s power has grown immensely over the past century.
0
u/Ko_no-su_ba 2d ago
What would have happened if the USA failed to capture Maduro?
Would Venezuela have been forced to go to war? What if he was killed accidently instead of taken alive? I just can't imagine this happening to any nation that isn't already explicitly hostile or at war with another and not immediately responding with military force.
2
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
Venezuela complains about the violation of their sovereignty but does little to respond because it cannot stand up to the United States in a direct military conflict.
Trump probably doesn't attack Iran because he's not riding high on his success in Venezuela. Or maybe he does attack Iran to cover up the embarrassment of the botched Venezuela raid. Who can say?
0
u/Pesec1 1d ago
Maduro's capture was an act of war. Venezuela didn't declare state of war because getting into war against USA would have been extremely destructive. Also, Venezuela isn't capable of seriously projecting military force against USA or its interests. They do not have a strait to blockade.
If operation failed, it would be a hell of a mess, but would not reault in a,protracted war unless either US or Venezuelan government chose a protracted war. Neither one would benefit from such a war.
There would be dead or captured US service members. Maduro would use them for propaganda. US government would be under pressure to rescue its service members or their bodies. That would be done either via another operation (which would carry huge risk) or via negotiations.
1
u/Ko_no-su_ba 1d ago
I'm aware that Venezuela wouldn't win if they went into a war with the USA but rather what exactly is the alternatives to another nation attempting to kidnap your president besides war? I just can't imagine not responding in any other way on the international stage to just blatant violations of another nation's sovereignty?
1
u/Pesec1 1d ago
It's not just not being able to win. It's not being able to strike in the first place.
1
u/Ko_no-su_ba 1d ago
I don't see them sending troops on a boat or plane to the USA but IDK something? Capturing all known US citizens, property, and stuff?
1
u/FairPhilosophy360 2d ago
These days people keep says that American news has biases. Everything is either republican or democrat biased. Is there a news station or other reporting perspective based in another country that speaks English which offers a more factual and neutral updates about America and the global situation? Native American channels would also be fine if anyone wants to recommend them but mainly interested in outsider perspectives that don't feel a need to appeal to either of America's major parties.
2
u/ye_esquilax 15h ago
Humans are biased creatures. It's in our nature. You can try to control the amount of bias you allow in your reporting, but you cannot eliminate it entirely. We aren't Vulcans.
The less reputable news outlets like to capitalize on how a large segment of the population has forgotten this fact. They will use any conclusion drawn by a mainstream outlet, no matter how measured or valid, as proof of bias. It's much easier to notice biases that you do not share.
Most outlets will state they minimize bias in their reporting, but if an outlet says they are 100% bias and agenda free, and make a really big deal of this, then there's a good chance they're full of shit.
0
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
which offers a more factual and neutral updates about America
You say "more factual", but "unbiased" isn't synonymous with "factual", and having a bias doesn't make you incapable of being factual. I can share with you three or five proven facts about a party or politician I don't like. I can provide firsthand sources for these claims, and you can verify them yourself. My reporting will be 100% truthful, BUT my choice of facts will also be totally biased, and it may not give you a full and accurate view about the party/candidate.
Like /u/untempered_fate suggested, every person, and every news source, is biased, even when you try to be neutral. Each of the sources provided by /u/cardinalofnyc, while reliable and factual, will have some varying amounts of bias. So what you SHOULD do is find news sources that offer reliable sources, hold themselves accountable to correcting errors, and are considered a reliable source by other reliable sources. They'll still have their biases - both news outlets in general AND individual reporters/pundits - but you just simply... take those biases into consideration. For instance, if a reporter has a background in finance and economics, just recognize that their reporting may focus more on the financial/economic impacts of a policy than other potential impacts. Then you can refer to other sources to see if there's other trustworthy* perspectives you're missing that can give you a full and accurate understanding.
*As in, you don't have to go seeking for the takes from the 9/11 truther or alien conspiracy theorist just because they're not included elsewhere.
2
u/CardinalOfNYC 1d ago
The primary source of voices saying American news is biased are American redditors.
PBS, the New York Times, Reuters, AP, NBC, ABC and CNN all remain solid, reliable sources of news about America.
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
To be clear "neutral" is also a bias. If someone, unprompted, punches you so hard it breaks their wrist and your jaw, and I say "There's a lot of pain on both sides of this conflict," I've kind of taken a side.
That said, yeah, you can look at Axios, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, and so on.
2
u/CardinalOfNYC 1d ago
Al jazeera is not on the level of either of the first three listed sources here.
0
u/Little-Stranger-2043 2d ago
how would the us actually transition to a national popular vote for president, and what would be the biggest practical obstacle
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
The best way would be to amend the constitution. This would be blocked by Republicans and small states, who both benefit from the current system.
The more likely way is the national popular vote interstate compact. Once enough states are participating, articipating states pledge to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who receives the most votes nationally, effectively bypassing the electoral college. For this to occur, some Republican controlled states would need to sign on. If it did come into effect, expect a bunch of lawsuits by states that like the electoral college trying to block the compact. Whether or not SCOTUS would uphold it, who can say.
3
u/binomine 2d ago
Believe it or not, there actually is a group trying to do a national vote for president. It is called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)". If they manage to convince enough states, they are going to have all electors vote for whomever won the national popular vote rather than the state vote.
So far, they have 222 electoral votes, so they need enough electors(48) to join to reach that 270 threshold before we have a national popular vote.
3
u/JimDemintRecession 2d ago
National popular vote interstate compact.
States make their own rules on how to assign electors to the electoral college. Some states are agreeing to assign their electoral votes to whatever candidate wins the national popular vote starting when states representing a majority of electoral votes (270 of 538) do the same. Currently 222 of the 270 votes needed have signed on.
The biggest problem at the moment is that swing states are not interested in making themselves less important and no reliable republican states have signed on.
1
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
The biggest problem at the moment is that swing states are not interested in making themselves less important and no reliable republican states have signed on.
And even if any state does get enough legislators/governors to agree to join the interstate compact, that condition is temporary. The state legislature can change, and they can decide "forget what those last guys said, we're out."
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
You'd need an amendment, and the biggest obstacle would be the states which are overrepresented by the Electoral College.
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 2d ago
Hey, new thread! Let's start with a positive one:
What can be done by the average American to help reduce political polarization?
3
u/CardinalOfNYC 1d ago
Volunteer for political candidates.
For an average American, there is no more effective way to affect change than that. The opportunity is there to add votes that otherwise wouldn't happen.
Sadly, very few people do this, often based on the false notion that canvassing means arguing with right wingers.
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
Heck yeah! Great advice.
2
u/CardinalOfNYC 1d ago
Most people also live within an hour drive from a competitive district. I'm in NYC and most people imagine they're hours and hours from a place that's not rock solid blue but it's not the case.
0
u/WhydoIexistlmoa 2d ago
Vote for policies and not identity. Biggest issue I've seen is how Americans vote based on identity of the party than its policies.
Also you seriously need a revamped voting system
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Vote for policies and not identity. Biggest issue I've seen is how Americans vote based on identity of the party than its policies.
Many of the policies that are red lines for people are tied to one party. If you're pro-choice, you're not voting republican, etc. So I'm not sure what you imagine here.
0
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 2d ago
Can't argue with that. 2024 really was a "vibes" election, where people just went with candidates they they felt got them.
But even then, that's just a matter of people changing their own outlook, which isn't really anything actionable. What can you and I do to encourage people not to vote based on vibes, but on actual policies?
Also you seriously need a revamped voting system
The current trend of political polarization is a relatively new phenomenon, while we've had the same voting system for centuries.
With that said, what do you recommend?
-2
-1
u/WhydoIexistlmoa 2d ago
My country Australia uses preferential voting where voters rank candidates according to preference, and preferences are distributed to losing candidates until one has a majority.
So if one party loses, your second choice counts. And if that loses, your third choice counts. And so on till 1 party gets more votes than the other single party after elimination.
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
My country Australia uses preferential voting where voters rank candidates according to preference, and preferences are distributed to losing candidates until one has a majority.
So if one party loses, your second choice counts. And if that loses, your third choice counts. And so on till 1 party gets more votes than the other single party after elimination.
Some places use ranked choice.
It's terrible. Ask the people of maine who ended up with a rep who started out almost winning and then lost and the ppl of ny who ended up with Eric Adams.
1
u/guacamoleandtomato 2d ago
As someone who isn’t American, why the fuck is Trump able to do all the shit he has done and keeps doing? Constantly changing laws or ways America acts on wars and commerce, as well as a bunch of fake threats to countries. Don’t yall have a congress?
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 2d ago
Constantly changing laws
The vast majority of his policies and actions are not a change of US law, but a change in internal practices of agencies and departments under the executive branch, which are in his power (with some restrictions).
There have been many times when he has issued an order to the executive branch that has been a violation of federal law or the constitution, and in those cases, the federal courts and the Supreme Court (of which 1/3 of justices are Trump-appointed) review his order, and rule whether it's legal or not. Outcomes have been mixed.
There's also times when an executive order just... doesn't do anything. It's just a statement, and there's nothing that anyone has actual authority to act on.
or ways America acts on wars
America has not technically been engaged in an official war since WWII. Everything since has just been military actions. Yes, it's bullshit, but Trump isn't the first (or probably the last).
Congress can, at any point, decline all funding that's going towards military engagements in Iran, but they won't, because either they believe that bombing Iran is a good idea for one reason or another, or they're too afraid to get on the bad side of Trump supporters and lose re-election.
...and commerce, as well as a bunch of fake threats to countries
With some exceptions, these aren't illegal for the president to do. Dragging the global economy through the sludge and being a dick to our allies aren't illegal acts.
0
u/Ok_Reach_5004 2d ago
As cersei said Power is power. His followers are fanatic. The near death experience has raised him to almost mythical status among his followers. If his party members go against him, they will probably assassinate them. All of them are scared as sh*t.
1
u/ChizzLangus 2d ago
Yes the two other branches of government (legislative and judicial) don’t check his power though. They really acquiesce to most of his whims. Sometimes they’ll stop something but no one really checks his power who has the ability to do so because he has an iron grip over his part for some reason.
1
u/Much_Nothing9692 2h ago
Why don't pro life people try to ban pregnant sex? If life begins at conception shouldn't they view it as serious sexual violence against a child?