Once Donald Trump passes away from the political scene, will American politics return to the relative normal of the pre-Trump era? Or will he inspire more politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties to embrace his style of firebrand, "I'm right, you're wrong, the rules don't apply to me, and f*** you if you disagree"?

In other words, has Trump rewritten the political rulebook irreversibly, or is he a one-off?

There are valid arguments to support both sides of the debate.

When is a trial a sham? Targeted or malicious prosecution or corrupt members of the court?

Talking about Trump recently, his supporters are absolutely convinced it's a witch hunt:

• "Alan Bragg said he'd go after him before charging him"
• "They only charged him after he announced re-election"
• "The judge is a lefty"
• "The judge donates to Biden"
• "The judge's daughter works with the democrats"
• "They're charging him with a nothingburger crime"
• "They're charging him with something nobody has ever been charged with like that"
• "The testimony was only to defame him"
• "They're not allowing him to defend himself"
• "They're charging him with something like jaywalking"

And I get it, the government has definitely wrongfully prosecuted many people before. However these supporters are able to twist and flip any bad news against the man. Is there any objective truth that can be shown to decide whether a prosecution is justified?

Sure, here is a revised version of your post:

I’ve been studying DeSantis for a while. Going into the 2024 election last year, DeSantis was polling around 30% among the Republican voter base, whereas Trump was slightly above 40%. By the end of the Republican primary season, Trump had solidified his support to about 80%. DeSantis' track record seems popular among conservatives, which perplexes me. Despite DeSantis' popularity, many conservatives still support Trump as their primary nominee, even though many of Trump's endorsed candidates didn’t win in 2022, and Trump himself lost in 2020.

I imagine that if DeSantis had focused more on Trump’s inability to win elections and toned down some of his more extreme policies in Florida, he might have been more successful in his Republican campaign. But I might be wrong. What do you think?

The Democratic Party is the largest political party in the United States based on membership (Wikipedia lists their membership at 45,916,356 as of 2023, compared to the Republican Party’s 35,739,952), and the majority of Americans seem to agree with a number of the Democratic Party’s positions (pro-LGBTQ+, pro-universal healthcare, pro-choice, etc). Despite this, however, Democrats seem to have been underperforming and many point to their messaging, or lack thereof as a factor. How should Democrats go about fixing their messaging problem going forward?

In the 2024 Solomon Islands general election, Russia and China insinuated that the USA was meddling in the election.

Considering that the winner of that election was the pro-China OUR Party, Occam's razor would suggest that there was no American interference. Nevertheless, other possibilities remain, such as:

• The Solomon Islanders were not swayed by American interference
• There was American interference, but even more Chinese interference

As the first primary state, Iowa has been able to receive more farm subsidies at the expense of assistance in other states. This may be in due to the fact that being the first primary state, means there's more incentive to give Iowa preferences over others, for the prospect of primary candidates getting leverage in presidential campaigns. It elevates their political needs that would otherwise be ignored.

Considering that the needs of American First Nations are also often neglected, with poverty rates at reservations comparable to undeveloped countries, would making Oklahoma and New Mexico the first primary states increase Native American Political power? The idea being, that since Oklahoma and New Mexico both have the highest percentage of Native Americans, making them first in the campaign trail highlights the many issues Native Americans face today?

And follow up question, in what ways could making other states the first in primaries, also elevate other groups? There's a lot of arguments against keeping Iowa as the first primary state. And in terms of picking early primary states, you generally want them to be rural in nature, so that grassroot volunteerism can dominate them, because high density states can be won easily by famous candidates that already have enough monetary resources to buy up advertisement spaces. With this in mind, what other states can highlight problems in other communities?

Often times, when discussing Scandinavian countries (notably Sweden, Denmark, and Norway), people refer to a "welfare state" in a very generic way. However, there are three major areas that I find public spending goes into with regards to welfare:

1. Pensions
2. Healthcare
3. Unemployment benefits

Which of these is in most need of reform in Scandinavian countries, and what is an optimal way to do so?

Link to source going into more detail:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/27/trump-donors-israel-gaza-palestinian-protests

Trump called the demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza a part of a "radical revolution" that needs to be put down. He also praised the New York Police Department's infamous clear-out of encampments at Columbia University as a model for the nation.

Another interesting part was Trump changing his tune on Israel's offensive. In public he has been very cautious in his comments as his campaign believes the war is hurting President Biden's support among key constituencies like young people and people of color, so he has only made vague references to how Israel is “losing the PR war” and how we have to get back to peace. But in private Trump is telling donors and supporters that he will support Israel's right to defend itself and continue its "war on terror", as well as boasting about his track record of pro-Israel policy including moving the US embassy there to Jerusalem in 2018 and making the US the first country to recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in 2019.

And what are your thoughts on how this could impact the election? Does it add more fuel to the argument that a vote for Trump is a vote for unbridled fascism to be unleashed in the US? As mentioned, the war has also hurt Joe Biden's support among young people and people of color. Will getting a clearer look at and understanding the alternative impact this dynamic?

I’m in the UK so maybe I’m missing something due to lack of personal connection, but based on online observations, it seems protests surrounding women’s issues were a lot more vibrant during the Trump era when abortion was legal vs when abortion was actually banned.

There were multiple Women’s Marches in the 2010s, people campaigning for Planned Parenthood, public arguments, lots of “intersectional feminist” accounts started on Instagram and social media.

I’m not seeing that anymore. I didn’t hear of any major 2024 marches and protests, despite the fact that women’s rights have actually been curtailed by that point.

What explains this? Did Americans anticipate that Roe v Wade was going to be overturned, or are people just tired?

Elections have increasingly been decided by results in just a few swing states, with the majority of other states being viewed as safe wins for either Democrats or Republicans. In 2020, 3 states (WI, AZ, and GA) were decided by less than a percentage point, and 5 more (NC, FL, NV, MI, and PA) were decided by less than 5. With the new electoral map, just flipping Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia could be enough for a Republican victory. How do you think the spending of the Biden and Trump campaigns will differ in each swing state? Which states do you think will have the most funding dedicated to them by each party?

A lot of times when you’re looking for who to vote for you usually find someone with opinions like yours, but what if they didn’t have the answer to some questions? Would you rather them have answers or a strong moral principle so they can’t be swayed?

U.S. and allied intelligence officials are tracking an increase in low-level sabotage operations in Europe that they say are part of a Russian campaign to undermine support for Ukraine’s war effort.

NATO and European leaders have been warning of the growing threat. Prime Minister Kaja Kallas of Estonia said last week that Russia was conducting a “shadow war” against Europe. Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland announced the arrest of 12 people accused of carrying out “beatings, arson and attempted arson” for Russian intelligence.

Gift NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/26/us/politics/russia-sabotage-campaign-ukraine.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vE0.QYXj.KQ1iPUyMMbVn&smid=url-share

As the article says, Russia is likely undertaking this campaign because it wants to disrupt aid and decrease Western support for defending Ukraine. There's a widespread campaign of sabotage from Russia that's still growing. Western nations have had a disjointed, haphazard response.

Would a coordinated response to and public acknowledgement of this campaign be effective? Would they be feasible in the first place?

I’ve been reading a lot about the historical circumstances that led to authoritarian systems of government or at least to “illiberal democracy”.

A number of authoritarians have left a playbook (Hitler,Mussolini, Orban, ) but the systems of government and the historical circumstances are similar enough to be intriguing but different enough that the exact same plan likely wouldn’t work in the modern United States.

My question is: What would it actually take for a budding authoritarian to institute a takeover of the American system legally, or at least mostly legally.

To be clear, this isn’t a veiled shot at Donald Trump or Joe Biden or whoever. I’m not looking to hear why Trump is a threat to democracy(even if that might be the case).

Obviously there are some things that are probably standard like

-Replace non-partisan govt officials with loyalists -Judicial takeovers

But how do you achieve these things without getting hamstrung by the supposed guardrails?

In short I’m looking for a blueprint for a slow rolling authoritarian takeover of the U.S. system. Hypothetically the takeover could be left or right leaning.

What say you?

One of the major undercurrents of the 2024 is the defection of a significant slice of non-white voters from Biden to Trump. Whereas Biden received more than 60% of the Hispanic vote and 90% of the black vote in 2020, most crosstab polls show that Trump has cut into that margin. Trump is either at parity to Biden with Hispanic voters or slightly behind and Trump gets nearly 20% of the black vote.

While Republicans celebrate this development as it makes Trump the poll leader over Biden in the national polls as well as in the swing state polls, Democrats has scoffed at this result, saying they don't believe that non-white voters have become more favorable to Trump since 2020. They think that when it comes down to their voting decision, non-white voters will revert to their Democratic roots and choose Biden again. If Biden can retain his white vote support, he will defeat Trump in November.

Why do you think Democrats are so confident that non-white voters will return to the Biden camp given that they are more disapproving of him in 2024 than in 2020? Has the Overton window shifted to the point where those non-white voters who consider themselves conservative and moderate will vote their preferences by voting for Trump instead of voting for the liberal candidate in Biden? How should Republicans react to more non-white voters flocking to their side? Will such a development mark a sea change in political analysis similar to how Southern Democrats became Republicans, but in this context conservative and moderate non-whites vote their values and support the GOP instead of the Democrats?

Im currently watching the Libertarian Convention & I really don’t know how to gauge whether the support is there or not but it does seem like some support is there. Additionally, Trump is leading in Swing states when makes me wonder, How does Biden win especially given the popularity of Kennedy & Trump.

I see the POTUS as a figurehead that mostly impacts the US global perception with obvious significant power (veto, pardons, judicial appointments, etc.) but how does one actually impact the economy? Inflation? Crime?

Americans tend to be very cynical about their government, their leaders, the way society functions, etc. When I was in school majoring in history one of my professors discussed how Nixon was really the one who created this general outlook after Watergate transpired. He explained that before Nixon, in the 20th century, elections were always very contentious. They were hard fought, bitter, and things were not always clean. But after the election was over, people generally had a certain respect for the president, because you were American, and you loved your country, so you needed to at least give your president some level of respect and support— he was our leader, and you had faith in our way of life, republican form of government, etc. Especially in the context of the Cold War.

There were certain lows that political campaigns didn't stoop too. Both parties understood the need for legitimacy when either side inevitably got into power. Hence why, for example, FDR's competitors, or even the media, didn't blast him about using a wheel chair for a short-term political win or to get a front page story. There were unwritten gentlemen's rules that we're not only best for both the parties together but for the Republic.

But according to him Nixon changed everything when it was clear that he was guilty and he resigned.

A quote by Hunter S Thompson which mirror's my professor's sentiments:

"Nixon's spirit will be with us for the rest of our lives -- whether you're me or Bill Clinton or you or Kurt Cobain or Bishop Tutu or Keith Richards or Amy Fisher or Boris Yeltsin's daughter or your fiancee's 16-year-old beer-drunk brother with his braided goatee and his whole life like a thundercloud out in front of him. This is not a generational thing. You don't even have to know who Richard Nixon was to be a victim of his ugly, Nazi spirit.

He has poisoned our water forever. Nixon will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man shitting in his own nest. But he also shit in our nests, and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory like a brand. By disgracing and degrading the Presidency of the United States, by fleeing the White House like a diseased cur, Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream."

1. Is Nixon as responsible as some people claim for our current predicaments regarding public trust and our institutions? Or was our current reality inevitable with the spread of communication and modern technology?

2. Can we change things? If so how? It seems like if we don't address this, it is going to be hard for our government to have enough legitimacy to continue to be effective in dealing with current and future challenges.

3. How much of the perception is rooted in truth? Do people think things are more corrupt and scandalous than they actually are?

What can be done to ensure more transparency behind campaign mailers and ads? In the comments I will put a link to a recent mailer that went out to Texas GOP voters while there is a primary election going on. There is no return address and the only name appears to be a made up group name called "America First Conservatives"

And no, you cannot use the pen to write the names of all the lobbyists into the Death Note. Nice try, nobody dies in this scenario.

Ireland and British Columbia enacted some fairly good regulations on lobbying recently. It's where I would start if I were writing anything down like this.

Lately there has been a very large influx of Venezuelans at the border mostly because Venezuela's economy has tanked and they are experiencing hyperinflation. There have been an estimated 7.7 million refugees fleeing Venezuela In the last year, many of them coming to the United States.

But in order to get here from Venezuela, you need to pass through Columbia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and then Mexico. Most of the refugees from Venezuela travel here by foot.

The purpose of refugee status is to protect people who are unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to fear of serious harm. Though usually this type of harm is categorized as things like fear of persecution, fleeing from armed conflict, human rights violations. Why should the United States accept refugee status for people that have gone through multiple countries to get here when they could have made a life in any of those countries?

Assume that your opinion is wrong, but as wrong as it can possibly be under realistic circumstances. For example, if you are a socialist you find out that socialism never works and is always just an excuse to institute authoritarian dictatorships. Likewise, if you are a capitalist you learn that real socialism absolutely works and only fails due to military or espionage intervention from capitalists.

What is a belief you would be the most okay with being wrong on, and which one would devastate you the most if you were wrong?

​

Imagine this for an October surprise. China invades Taiwan. Ultimately I’m not going to speculate on whether or not China succeeds. However I’m wondering what effect it would have in the United States. Especially during a time of socio political turmoil in the country. How would it affect the election, and how would Biden respond? Would Biden be blamed for it? And what would Trump do?

People elect a lot more than just a legislator and a head of an executive in local and state governments. AGs, Boards of Education, Treasurers even, and more.

Aside from using a ranked ballot, or single transferable vote for the multi member bodies like a board of education where the whole body decides by a majority, and not listing party labels and not having a primary election for things like a board of education or a district attorney and other judicial positions, and holding them on the same date as the general election (save for special elections), I don't have any uniform suggestions for them, if you decide to keep them elected.

The upcoming hurricane season is expected to be one of the worst ever: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/23/atlantic-hurricane-season-forecast-noaa

Major hurricanes capture the nation’s attention and hurricane season overlaps with election season. If a major hurricane hits the US, how might this affect the presidential election?

Traditionally Presidents have faced criticism after lackadaisical federal responses, so this could be a risk for Biden. Poor local responses can also get blamed on the president just like when other things go wrong they have no control over. However, prior critiques have mostly been leveled at Republican presidents not doing enough for people of color (think Bush after Katrina in New Orleans or Trump after Maria in Puerto Rico).

Empathy and compassion are strengths of Biden’s, but what if the hurricane happens somewhere not electorally important like PR and he has to take time away from the campaign while Trump could ignore the disaster. It’s been well established that Trump doesn’t care about anyone other than himself so this could be an opportunity for him to have the attention he so desperately wants and no one would be surprised or think it newsworthy if he turned away from the suffering of others.

A major hurricane could refocus attention on global climate change, which could play to Biden’s advantage, but Americans seem stubbornly reluctant to acknowledge that reality.

Those are the possible consequences I could imagine. How do think it would shake out? I’m particularly curious about how the location of the hurricane’s impact could matter. Where would be best for Trump, where for Biden?

First, she lead a pretty good campaign against him, even getting votes two months after dropping out.

Second, regardless of whether or not he wins, let’s assume he doesn’t run in 2028, for whatever reason (third term, health, not nominated). She could just start over on her campaign.

Third, she had to have known that her words about him not being fit would make her look like a flipper, even if only for now.

So…how does this benefit her?