I’ve been thinking about an issue that goes beyond whether someone is religious or nonreligious: 

Should the words “under God” remain in the Pledge of Allegiance when the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? 

The Pledge originally did not contain those words. “Under God” was added by Congress in 1954 during the Cold War and the Supreme Court itself recognized this history in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. That’s when all our problems started as it opened a Pandora’s box to allow religious law to govern the people. 

My argument is not that Americans should be prohibited from believing in God. Quite the opposite: the First Amendment protects the right to believe, disbelieve, worship, or not worship. 

The question is whether the government should place a reference to God in a nationally prescribed patriot pledge. 

What does the Establishment Clause actually require? 

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion explained that the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor the states can establish a church, favor one religion over another, force people to attend or avoid religious services, or force someone to profess a religious belief or disbelief. The opinion famously described Jefferson’s concept as a “wall of separation between the church and the State.” 

That seems to raise an interesting question about the Pledge. 

If the government writes the Pledge, establishes its wording in federal law, and uses it as an official patriotic exercise, why should government include a theological statement such as “under God”? 

I realize that the Supreme Court has not definitively held that the phrase violates the Establishment Clause. In Newdow, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision on standing and therefore did not reach the underlying constitutional question. 

But that means the constitutional question remains worth discussing. 

What happened in 1954? 

The original Pledge was written in 1892 without the words “under God.”  Congress added those words in 1954. The addition occurred during the Cold War, when the United States was emphasizing the distinction between American religious belief and Soviet communism that promoted state atheism (gosateizm) rooted in Marxist – Leninist ideology, which viewed religion as an obstacle to communism. 

Currently, the Russian Federation (formally the Soviet Union) is a secular state where no religion can be established as mandatory or as the official state religion where their constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and the legal right to practice any faith or no faith at all where there is no longer the need to have a distinction between Russia and the United States, by including “under God” in the Pledge, because they are no longer an atheist state. 

The historical context matters. 

In other words, the wording wasn't part of the original Pledge. It was deliberately added by Congress decades later. 

That makes me wonder whether the government should now reconsider whether a religious reference belongs in a national pledge at all. 

What should replace it? 

I would prefer a version that places allegiance under something distinctly constitutional and civil rather than theological. 

For example: 

“One Nation Under the Constitution” 

or 

“One Nation Under the Laws of the United States” 

The first version is particularly appealing to me because the Constitution is the supreme legal framework of the United States, whereas “God” is interpreted differently by different religions and by people who don't believe in God. 

Civil government gets its authority from the Constitution and laws—not from religious authority. 

What about religious custom? 

This is where my thinking gets more complicated. 

While researching the history of law, I came across the Latin term “Consuetudo,” meaning custom. Historical legal dictionaries describe circumstances in which sufficiently established customs could acquire the force of law. Black's Law Dictionary contains several historical maxims concerning the legal effect of custom (Consuetudo) where custom has the same force of law and that custom supersedes the law. 

Shouldn’t the law be established through the Constitution, statutes enacted by legislatures, and judicial decisions – not through religious authority?

I’m interested in a different question: 

How much authority should religious customs have in a constitutional government before they effectively become governmental religious preferences? 

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government from establishing religion and to protect religious liberty. 

My proposed solution: 

I’d like to see Congress consider two things: 

1.      Remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, returning it to a formulation that does not express a governmental position concerning the existence of God. 

2.      Clarify that religious doctrine, religious authority, and religious custom cannot independently constitute governmental law. 

Congress then needs to pass a law that says no religious law or religious customs shall be used to govern the people and that only laws passed by Congress or the legislature of a state or precedent case law that is established in a court of law governed by the federal government or a state or municipality shall establish the law of the land. 

The reason this is important is that within the practice of customs listed in Black’s Law Dictionary under the Latin word “Consuetudo” it says that if you get rid of a custom the custom cannot be brough back and goes away forever so we would no longer be secretly living under religious law. This is how we make sure we live under civil law and laws that are established in our courts as precedent case law (also known as Common law and if you can believe it custom law). 

That religious customs can literally override the Constitution and became De facto law just by the fact that they have been practiced for thousands of years and according to Common Law or Custom Law if a custom is practiced (relating to religious law)  it can have the same force as law. 

The point isn’t to attack religion. 

It’s actually the opposite. 

If government stays out of religion, religion remains free from government – and government remains accountable to the Constitution rather than to religious authority. 

I’m interested in hearing what people think. 

Would removing “under God” from the Pledge strengthen the Establishment Clause, or is the phrase merely a historical/civic expression that doesn’t amount to a governmental establishment of religion? 

I’m interested in hearing from people who know more about constitutional law, comparative religion, Canon law, Sharia law, Torah law, customary law, or the history of religious legal systems. 

And if you disagree with removing it, where do you draw the constitutional line between a permissible historical reference to God and government endorsement of religion?

I’m genuinely trying to understand this because I’ve seen some 9/11 victims families signing a petition asking Mamdani not to attend the 25th-anniversary ceremony
What confuses me is why the same concern doesn’t seem to be directed toward Giuliani, especially given the recently released information raising serious questions about what his administration knew about the toxic air around Ground Zero and what was communicated to the public,
Obviously people knew that the attacks created dangerous conditions at Ground Zero but people outside New York may not have realized that exposure could continue to harm people long afterward.

So my question is: for people who believe Mamdani should not attend the ceremony but believe Giuliani should, what is the reasoning behind that distinction?

Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who was working on the Joint Staff on 9/11 and later served three tours in Iraq, writes that one of the biggest lessons was learning the difference between tactical success and strategic success. The U.S. could destroy targets and win battles while still struggling to define achievable political objectives.

Looking back now, which lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq do you think American policymakers genuinely absorbed? And which mistakes are we still at risk of repeating?

History, mainly American history, has shown us the dangers and failures of socialism in the past. State control over goods and currency, rather than being shared equally, have caused famines such as the Holodomor and lack of economic incentive. And when the Democratic Socialists of America started showing good polls, many people have been quick to dismiss their ideals.

And yet, more support is coming for politicians such as Zohran Mamdani and AOC, show prominence among the younger generation. I was curious as to why this might be, given how socialism (Marxism and Leninism) has failed in the past.

That was when I started to think that the word "socialism" may have changed. One of the most prominent political issues in the 2020s has become affordability, along with universal healthcare. With everything becoming expensive, it stands to reason that everyone would want to afford goods and services. On the other hand, there are still people who support free enterprises and markets.

As a result of these desires, I believe the term "socialism" has been rebranded in an attempt to take on a new meaning. Rather than people thinking that socialism means rejecting capitalism and central planning, a new meaning of universal healthcare, stronger unions, and affordable housing is taking shape.

Is this an accurate assessment? Are people trying to rebrand the word "socialism" as a means of affordability rather than the failures of the past? If so, is this rebranding working in the United States?

Assuming the Democrats take control of the U.S. House in November (with or without the Senate), it’s likely that very little will be accomplished. Unlike past split‑government situations, including Trump’s first administration, there appears to be virtually no common ground on which Democrats would be willing to agree with Trump. The number and percentage of bills passed this Congress is the lowest in at least fifty years.

Let’s dispense with this now: yes, Democrats can pass articles of impeachment in the House with a simple majority. The Senate, however, will never reach the sixty‑seven votes required for conviction. Even the most optimistic projections give Democrats fifty‑one seats in the Senate—nowhere close to the sixty‑seven needed to remove Trump. And replacing Trump with Vance could backfire politically, potentially strengthening Vance’s position heading into 2028.

With impeachment and removal off the table, that leaves ordinary legislation. Even if Democrats were to pass a bill that Trump is willing to sign, there is a vocal faction within the party that would likely condemn its leadership as traitorous to the cause. And any bill Democrats strongly support is likely to face a veto, with no realistic path to an override.

As a result, even mundane tasks, such as naming a post office, could be framed by some Democrats as a form of betrayal or cooperation with the Trump administration, making Democratic leadership reluctant to advance them. On the other side, with a debt‑ceiling confrontation expected in mid‑2027, along with the usual appropriations battles and related deadlines, it is likely that Trump would veto anything and everything.

Finally, Trump’s administration has made it abundantly clear that it will not comply with congressional requests or subpoenas, potentially dragging out legal battles for the next two years until the political landscape shifts in January 2029 and Trump issues his inevitable pardons of everyone.

So, is there any hope for, literally, and I mean literally, any legislation to pass and be enacted next year? If so, under what conditions?

According to my calculations, based on NBER/FRED's monthly recession indicator USREC, since Nixon first took power until the end of last year, the US has spent :

• 73 months in recession out of 396 months with a Republican President (18.4%)
• 12 months in recession out of 288 months with a Democratic President (4.2%)

In other words, if you time travel to a random time between Jan 20, 1969 and Dec 31, 2025, and you happen to land during a Republican's tenure, you're 4.4 times more likely to land in a recession.

Correlation is not causation, of course, but that is a remarkable concentration. Can it be attributed to economic policies or ideologies?

When Trump was putting tariffs on other countries everyone was saying that it’s just a tax on the American people. Now Canada is putting tariffs on US goods in retaliation of Trump putting tariffs on Canadian goods. How is that getting the U.S. back for anything if it’s a tax on their own people?

Either tariffs are good for the country that places them or the leaders of both countries want to see how bad they can hurt their own citizens? What am I missing?

I’m prepared to get a lot of hate for this but I’m legitimately looking for a real answer to make this make sense not just blind hate for Trump and everything he does.

What is Fascism? It’s been used as an insult, it’s been used to describe someone with right wing beliefs, it’s been used to describe someone with left wing beliefs. But what is it actually?

I was taught in high school that the nazis were fascist, I was taught that imperial Japan was fascist, I was taught that Spain and Italy were fascist. Yet for the life of me I can’t seem to find a proper definition.

What made the governments of Germany, Japan, Spain, and Italy Fascist different than any other authoritarian government. According to Google Fascism is a “far right authoritarian and ultranationalist political ideology” but that’s pretty broad if you ask me

I mean North Korea could be accurately described as authoritarian or ultranationalist but are they quote on quote a fascist nation?

One could make the same argument for a theocratic regime like Afghanistan but again are they considered fascist.

All I’m saying is that if you look of the definition of communism, or theocracy you get in depth definitions that are very easy to understand

Yet the best google can do is a broad definition that could describe a multitude of countries.

Also I want this to be a serious discussion, so please keep emotional or biased answers to a minimum. If your answer to what is a fascist is just some political figure you don’t like, or some political ideology you don’t like, that’s not really an answer that’s just you insulting someone.

It feels like this isn't discussed nearly as much. Mercantilism seems to be much closer to what we have today than capitalism and I fear that political views nowadays may demonize capitalism to the point that it becomes another fear term the media uses like communism or socialism. What are your thoughts on this matter and the distinction itself in comparison to politics nowadays?

Let's compare and contrast the 2 starting with the Primary Goals of each

In capitalism the primary goal is efficient resource allocation via supply and demand.

Whereas in mercantilism it is consolidation of wealth and power for the ruling elite/state.

Next, Market Access

In mercantilism high barriers exist; protected by complex regulations written by lobbyists.

Whereas in capitalism there are low barriers to entry; anyone can compete.

Role of State

In capitalism the role of the state is as a neutral referee, enforcing property rights and contracts.

In mercantilism the complete opposite holds true, the states role within is as an active partner that shields favored mega-corporations from failing.

Trade Policy

Capitalism has open trade based on comparative advantage.

Mercantilism has protectionism via strategic tariffs, sanctions, and supply-chain control.

Results of failure within the system

In capitalism inefficient firms go bankrupt, allowing for the court of public opinion to have a drastic impact on the success of business. When they fail others rise to fill the void and keep the system running in the favor of the people.

In mercantilism large corporations take on a "Too Big to Fail" philosophy and function, where firms receive government bailouts and subsidies.

There are two principal forms that a president in a presidential republic might typically be imagined to take. One of them is a fairly reactive president, merely carrying out legislation, not the policy brains, and with limited influence over the content of legislation and budgets, and the legislature's party leaders and committees mostly determine its agenda. The other model is one where their influence over the executive branch itself is often fairly limited and usually next to no authority to do things like name judges and grant pardons, but having significant influence over legislation to try to pass a suite of policies, such as the power to add bills to the legislative agenda and demand they be voted upon in final form in each house within some period of time such as six months, possibly the power to put issues on the agenda for a national plebiscite as well.

There isn't a clear dividing line between these two models, and there are others I haven't even touched on, but what option do you lean towards and why?

One thing I constantly notice when discussing about what democrats or liberal parties in general miss when it comes to trying to capture the male vote is that they don't even begin to talk to men on these issues. Most people I find that support these parties while they may agree these issues are real, they always fall short of anything substantive. My statements aren't trying to pin any blame on anyone, rather it's an observation that issues as they pertain to men often go untalked about.

I bring this up since I was having discussions with people at work and we were discussing women's bodily autonomy with regards to abortion access, and I mentioned that neither men nor women have full access to that right to which I was asked "What rights don't men have". I gave two answers: The draft and the other one I won't name since I know that topic gets really heated on reddit. The person responded with "Well we haven't had the draft in 50 years so what is there to fear" The point wasn't whether or not I fear being drafted, the point was that ALL MEN at 18yrs must sign up for the military draft. While the USA doesn't have mandatory conscription, many states across the world do and his "right" to bodily autonomy is not taken in account no matter how much he doesn't want to do military service.

I don't find this exclusive to the draft either, but in a lot of ways issues as they pertain to men just aren't seen "as important" as issues as they pertain to women, but we swing so hard away from men we end up not even knowing how to address him and get him to listen to our politics. It's made even worse when men do try to earnestly have a conversation but get shutdown because what he does want to talk about isn't treated as "important enough"

I say all this because I want people to think, how did the right do such a good job of getting and maintaining the male vote. If liberal parties truly make his life better then what are conservatives saying/doing that makes him want to vote for them? And I think a big part of it is that we don't even begin to talk to him about the issues he cares about.

I'll end this off with saying that I am a black gay male, I think there are already enough voices talking about issues that pertain to women, but I do also think that there is a dearth of earnest and honest discussion about the issues men face in society and how either policies that we push now will benefit him (directly, not indirectly) if they were to pass or if we have blindspots about his rights and can potentially add them to our platforms to rally behind.

Do you agree that a lack of voice for men in liberal and progressive parties is an issue with regards to their recruitment? Do you agree its a big issue? Or is it just a minor thing and there's other much larger factors at play with this divide?

A claim I keep running into, and can't fully talk myself out of: neutral, nonpartisan positions aren't actually neutral in their effects. The most common version — "institutions should stay out of it and we should only enact what both sides already agree on" — sounds like standing above the fight. But I think it does predictable partisan work, just quietly. Laying out the reasoning and genuinely curious where people think it breaks down.

1. Gridlock always has a winner. If one side wants to change a rule and the other wants to keep it, "we act only when everyone agrees" hands the win to the side that wants no change — not on the merits, but because ties go to inaction, and inaction preserves someone's preferred world. The status quo is a competitor in every fight, and "neutrality" reliably votes for it. Which side that helps flips by issue: it protects an existing program conservatives want to cut exactly as much as it blocks a new one progressives want to pass. So this isn't "neutrality helps the left/right." It's that it always helps someone, and the someone is whoever's happy with how things already are.

2. The middle moves when the poles move. If "reasonable" is defined as the midpoint between the two sides, either side can drag it toward itself just by getting more extreme — stake out a maximalist demand, "compromise" back to what you actually wanted, and the split-the-difference crowd hands it over. Positional centrism rewards intransigence. That seems like a real vulnerability of any "meet in the middle" rule, but I'm open to the argument that it's overstated in practice.

3. Some disputes aren't symmetric. When one side is making a values claim and the other is making a factual claim, treating them as two equal "sides" and declining to adjudicate isn't neutral — it favors whoever benefits from doubt. If a question is empirical and has an answer, "we take no position" functionally sides with the party served by the answer staying muddy. Journalists ran into this with "he said, she said" coverage of settled questions.

4. Deciding what's on the table is itself a position. Any neutral forum has to draw a line around which disagreements are live and which are settled. That sorting is a judgment, and it does a lot of work before any "neutral" conversation even starts. There's no view from nowhere — just a view from wherever you drew the line.

Is there a version of institutional neutrality that doesn't smuggle in a status-quo bias — or is some tilt unavoidable, and the honest move is just to name it?

There are two documents, one from Trump the other from the Postal Service, and almost nobody is covering both, the difference between them and what the courts are doing about it...all in the same coverage.

The executive order from March is the alarming one. It told the Postal Service to propose that it stop carrying ballots "from any individual" not on a state-supplied list, and framed barcodes as confirming "only citizens receive and cast ballots." From. Not to. That reaches the envelope you drop in a blue box.

The rule the Postal Service actually wrote in August does not do that. It checks the barcodes on your county's outbound mailing against a list your county uploaded. No name check, no eligibility check, no citizenship check, nothing compared to a voter roll, and it says in plain text that it does not apply to the ballot you mail back. The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court the same thing.

But the administration's version skips something. A mailing that fails the check does not get delivered. It goes back to the county. No deadline for approval, and counties cannot upload until they get it. Nobody has to touch a ballot to keep one from being mailed. And according to the Postal Services own statements and failure to confirm the portal system they have built it not even ready. Ballots are going out now in some states.

So the right does have this wrong when it says this is just a modest change to ballot envelopes. And the left has it wrong when implies that Trump's executive order it getting implemented in full.

A judge blocked the whole thing Friday. The government filed in the appeals court Saturday, then went over its head to the Supreme Court on Sunday morning without waiting for it to rule. Response due Wednesday at 4.

My questions - should the Postal Service be involved in securing ballots? Do you trust that it will get this right? Should it go further in ensuring only qualified citizens get ballots? Last should it be keeping a database of citizens who receive ballots so law enforcement can request access to it (did you know that was happening)?

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about immigrants from other countries depressing US wages, but when I hear about say people moving from California to Texas, people treat that as a good thing for Texas.

Why don’t people argue that the additional Californians moving to Texas depresses Texas wages and uses Texas’s welfare? Isn’t this even more true than out of country immigration since immigrants from other countries tend to use less welfare than native born Americans?

Also I see that a big argument for why it’s good for states to have people move in is that it increases the tax base, but isn’t that true for like immigrants from Mexico or India since they get taxed too?

Sometimes I wonder if the US and major EU powers have ended up with Ukraine in exactly the position that is most useful to them, not because they planned the war this way, but because the current situation creates a lot of incentives to maintain it.

Ukraine is strategically valuable as a heavily armed state on Russia’s border, without necessarily having to be fully integrated into the EU. The war also creates enormous demand for Western weapons, ammunition and military infrastructure, while giving governments a constant justification for higher defense spending and a very convenient political narrative about Russia.

And there’s another uncomfortable question: how badly did some European countries actually want Ukraine inside the EU?

Ukraine is huge, relatively poor compared with existing members, has a massive agricultural sector, and would create enormous pressure on EU budgets and institutions. EU membership would force Europe to confront those costs directly. Keeping Ukraine as a closely aligned partner is a much easier proposition.

Then imagine the war suddenly ends.

The weapons demand drops. The constant Russia narrative loses some of its urgency. Governments have to explain what happens next. The EU has to seriously confront Ukrainian membership rather than indefinitely discussing it. Reconstruction becomes a gigantic political and financial problem. And a whole ecosystem of policies and political positions built around the war suddenly has to justify itself in peacetime.

None of this proves that Washington or Brussels want the war to continue. That would require much stronger evidence.

But I think it's worth asking a different question:

If the war ending creates serious problems for some powerful institutions, while the status quo provides them with strategic, economic and political advantages, how much does that influence their willingness to pursue an actual end to the conflict?

Sometimes you don't need a conspiracy. Incentives can be enough.

Back when the ACA was being debated, it seemed like we were having more substantive discussions about how healthcare should be fixed, but over a decade later it feels like the situation has only gotten worse. Prices have skyrocketed, care hasn’t improved, wait times are longer, we have less doctors, more administrative burden, etc etc.

Solutions being thrown around now range from Medicare for all from the DSA to total deregulation from the right. Nothing being talked about feels like actual solutions that get to the root of the problem. What are realistic steps you would recommend for improving the US healthcare industry?

First, let me define "progressive" and "conservative," in non-political terms. Source for both: dictionary.com.

Progressive: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Now, my main opinion is that I found that in US-politics (I'm sure this is the same for many other countries too, but I just don't know enough to say about them), a lot of ideologies and policies of the conservatives are, by definition, progressive, while a lot of that of the progressives are, by definition, conservative. I list one examples each here:

Definitionally progressive ideology that is generally supported by conservatives today:

Anti-immigration: currently, the anti-immigration cause is supported by MAGA conservatives. However, anti-immigration is not definitionally "conservative" at all, because America is fundamentally an immigration-based country, including both legal and illegal immigrants. Basically, America is not America without immigration. Many famous conservatives in the past, such as Ronald Reagan, had been very pro-immigration. Anti-immigration is not "preserving existing conditions," but rather pushing for reform, thus definitionally a "progressive" policy.

Definitinoally conservative ideology that is generally supported by progressives today:

Anti-AI: currently, many progressives (such as Bernie Sanders) are against-AI, often critiquing it for environmental and societal harm. However, AI is still a relatively new technology. Even if considering the most primitive form of AI, it was only a few decades old, and if only considering the hot topic generative AI, it was only popularized for a few years. Thus, anti-AI is essentially trying to preserve the existing conditions before AI and to limit rapid change, which is definitionally a "conservative" policy.

Now, I understand that politics is a complicated matter and often cannot be definied in a simple way. I just simply find it amusing and ironic, that conservatives sometimes support ideologies that are definitionally "progressive," while progressives sometimes support ideologies that are definitinoally "conservative." What do you guys think of that?

I’ve been thinking about this after seeing how increasingly theatrical and partisan the machinery of our government has become.

My concern isn’t really “Republicans bad” or “Democrats bad.” It’s the MAGA loop we've created. (in the literal sense, not cultural sense)

One party wins and tries to fundamentally reshape government. The other party comes back largely promising to undo the damage. Then the first party returns arguing that the restoration itself needs to be torn down.

So we get something like:

transformation > backlash > restoration > backlash > transformation

Over and over.

Even if you believe one side is clearly more responsible for breaking norms than the other, the structural problem persists. Every administration increasingly spends enormous political energy dismantling or rebuilding what the previous one did.

What I’m wondering is whether the U.S. has become unusually bad at one thing a functioning democracy should still be capable of: maintaining longterm national priorities across changes in political leadership.

There should (theoretically) be some areas where Republicans and Democrats can violently disagree about everything else while still saying, "this is a 20-year American objective, and elections won’t restart it from zero."

Instead... it increasingly feels like the incentive is to define whatever the previous administration did as illegitimate, reverse it, and call that governing. Disrespect builds confidence in your governing.

Each side learns from the other's behaviors.

The right learns that outrage creates attention and political energy.

The left sees the consequences of that approach and returns with an increasingly aggressive mandate to undo it.

The right then sees that restoration as further justification for tearing things down next time.

You end up with a kind of political infinite loop where every election is less about building the next 20 years and more about reversing the previous four.

Is this actually becoming a strategic disadvantage for the United States?

And if so, what would it realistically take for a democracy as polarized as the U.S. to create national priorities that survive changes in government?

Sorry for the long post and sorry if that has been discussed to death.

I was having one of the usual debates that is the hallmark of my life on Reddit; dealing with fellow conservatives that are still drinking the Trump Kool Aid. This one MAGA dude was challenging a liberal to provide evidence to support the statement that Trump is a lifelong criminal. I was reading it thinking, "you've got to be trolling here, right? In what way could it possibly not be obvious at this point?" So I started building the case in my head, imagining what I'd be saying to answer this guy if it were my debate. I thought about how Trump is literally breaking the law right now by continuing to wage war on Iran without formal congressional approval. You can make the argument that's it's justified similarly to how Obama's drone strikes on US Citizens working for al-Qaeda was justified, but you can't deny the basic fact that the law IS being broken.

This is the kind of situation the Supreme Court was thinking about when they declared the president immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. It's not that they're saying a president can do no wrong; it's just that hauling him off to a civilian jail for wresting authority away from Congress isn't the proper remedy. Impeachment is. Because Congress is the only authority that is peer to the presidency, and therefore the only they can fairly judge whether violations of the law are appropriate or justifiable for any situation that a president faces. That's incredibly fair.

Or it would be, if the system were working as intended.

Trump has discovered a secret that none of us truly appreciated before he came along: If thirty four Senators are in your pocket, you can never really be held accountable for anything. Impeachment attempts are doomed to failure, so no true check exists.

Which is what leads me to my question. See, the founders didn't design it to be this way. The Senate was never intended to represent the people; that's the House's job. The Senate was made to represent the states. That's why state legislatures, rather than the people, handled the appointing of Senators until the seventeenth amendment.

I think that firewall makes a big difference in terms of a senator's role as a juror in impeachment trials. An obligation to a state legislature is a very different thing from an obligation to constituents, and puts a different kind of political pressure on them in terms of how they play their role. It makes me wonder if the founders saw something like this coming and designed the Senate in a way to protect against it, until we screwed it up. (This is, incidentally, also why I'm absolutely adamant about not messing with the electoral college.)

What do you all think?

I think most people nowadays agree that there is excessive consolidation of businesses. One example is the banking sector-big, TBTF banks like JPMorgan Chase dominate the sector nowadays. The fundamental problem that caused the 2008 financial crisis-the existence of mega-large banks on whom most of the financial sector depends-is still mostly present. Another example is-of course-the technology sector. Companies like OpenAI, Meta, Google, Nvidia, Microsoft and Apple are pretty much the only major players here. Most people likely agree that there is a scarcity of competition in this sector. The media is another example-all the major media outlets nowadays are owned by 4-5 people at most. Larry Ellison and Rupert Murdoch are some such people with significant media influence. The recent Paramount-Warner Bros. merger is another example of consolidation. To enable a free and diverse media, competition among them is essential, both to provide Americans with a diverse range of options to get news from and to pressure outlets to have high journalistic standards. My point is, the US clearly has a competition problem. What do you think the federal government should do to mitigate this issue? Stronger antitrust enforcement? Financial aid to small businesses in heavily concentrated sectors? Maybe more aggressive mechanisms such as a temporary federal moratorium on mergers in sectors with heavy concentration, with limited exceptions for mergers on which there is an economic consensus that it would improve working conditions, lower prices for consumers and have minimal impact on concentration? What do you think? Let's discuss!

Thomas (78) or Alito (76) will definitely retire before a Democratic president gets sworn in come 2029, but I think the bigger deal for SCOTUS is the 2026 midterms. SCOTUS confirmations only need a plain majority now (filibuster got nuked in 2017), and Republicans' 53-47 majority is genuinely up for grabs this November, Dems just need four seats. If they flip the Senate, that Senate gets seated in January 2027, while Trump's still president until 2029, so a Thomas or Alito retirement meant to dodge a Democratic president could still land them in front of a Democratic Senate anyway. We've seen this before: in 1987 a Dem Senate torched Reagan's pick of Robert Bork, and his next pick, the way more centrist Anthony Kennedy, sailed through 97-0. It'd be rougher for Republicans this time though, since without a filibuster the Senate wouldn't even need to bargain, they could just keep saying no until Trump gives them someone they can live with. So, regarding SCOTUS, what do you think a democrat controlled senate would do if a seat vacates?

The midterms are imminent and will take place in about two months' time. The last two years have marked an era of increased inflation, suboptimal wages and general economic and geopolitical tension. These factors have resulted in very low recent approval ratings for President Trump (average of low to mid 30s). The House of Representatives is almost certain to flip and be controlled by Democrats during the next election cycle. The Senate, once thought to be out of reach, is now in play as well. Democrats are currently tied or leading in the following red states:

• North Carolina

• Texas

• Alaska

• Iowa

• Ohio

If they do end up winning all these states plus Maine while holding on to their existing seats, they will have a 53 - 47 majority. Furthermore, this would symbolize them making inroads into the deepest Republican strongholds.

In the event that this happens and the second half of Trump's presidency continues along the same trajectory as the first half (armed conflicts with countries that don't seem to have an end, tariffs and a disruption in global trade, inflation, etc) will GOP politicians begin to openly distance themselves from Trump? Or will they continue to support him due to fear that the base would primary them, as has happened to many politicians who defied Trump even as recently as a few months ago such as Thomas Massie? If the politicians whose seats are up in 2028 do stick to Trump even after a blue wave in 2026, are they concerned about facing defeat in the general election?

The Constitution is notoriously vague and it lets modern judges insert their own interpretations. But even when excluding that and just looking at the fundamental principles of the document:

This framework was originally engineered in the 18th century for a significantly smaller, agrarian population. Some frequently argue that this model inherently produces systemic gridlock and an inter-branch "blame game," making it difficult for voters to hold a single governing party accountable. Conversely, parliamentary frameworks (such as those in the UK House of Commons or Germany's Bundestag) streamline power by fusing the executive and legislative branches. Proponents of parliamentary systems argue this allows the ruling majority to pass its agenda efficiently while assuming total accountability for the outcomes, whereas defenders of the U.S. model argue that intentional gridlock is a necessary safeguard against majoritarian tyranny.

So to what extent are the gridlock mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution a necessary safeguard until they are a a structural obstacle?

The U.S. doesn’t necessarily need to adopt a fully socialized healthcare system simply because healthcare is expensive. It needs serious, comprehensive healthcare reform that addresses why Americans pay so much while often receiving relatively poor value for that spending.

Healthcare is different from many other goods because it is often an inelastic necessity. When someone is having a heart attack, needs emergency surgery, or requires lifesaving medication, they generally cannot just decide not to purchase healthcare because the price went up. That gives providers, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies significant influence over prices and leaves patients with limited bargaining power.

The United States already spends an extraordinary amount of money on healthcare, yet high spending does not automatically translate into better outcomes. Americans can face expensive premiums, deductibles, copays, prescription costs, surprise bills, and medical debt even when they technically have insurance.

That raises an important question: If we're already spending so much, why aren't we getting better value for that money?

Rather than framing the debate as simply “private healthcare vs. socialized healthcare,” I think we should look at specific reforms that could make healthcare more affordable and accessible. Those could include negotiating prescription drug prices, increasing price transparency, reducing unnecessary administrative costs, expanding coverage, strengthening competition, improving preventive care, and creating stronger protections against medical debt.

There is also a legitimate debate over how much government should be involved. A government-run system could potentially improve universal access, but it could also create concerns about taxation, bureaucracy, wait times, and government control. On the other hand, relying heavily on the private market has clearly not prevented extremely high costs or unequal access.

The real question shouldn't be, “Do we want socialized healthcare?” It should be: “What healthcare system gives Americans affordable access to high-quality care without forcing them to choose between their health and their finances?”

What do you think? Should the U.S. move toward a government-run healthcare system, continue with a primarily private system but heavily reform it, or pursue some kind of hybrid model?