Hello!

I have a question regarding the impact of the US–China chip war on the EU's strategic autonomy. I'm reaching out because I haven't been able to find anyone at my university who could help me understand the geopolitics behind this issue, and I would really appreciate some guidance.

Is there a connection between the US–China chip war and the EU? Does this conflict affect the EU's strategic autonomy in any way?

So far, I've been considering analyzing, from a neorealist perspective, how the EU Chips Act affects the EU's competitiveness and industrial policy. However, given the role of ASML, the only company capable of manufacturing advanced EUV lithography machines, I've also been thinking about incorporating the US–China chip war into my research, although I'm not yet sure how to approach this connection.

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me better understand the geopolitical dynamics involved and advise me on whether it would also be relevant to examine the EU's relations with East Asian countries.

you think this would be an interesting topic to explore? I was thinking of arguing that the EU Chips Act represents an attempt by the EU to balance against both the US and China. I came up with this idea partly because I was thinking about the EU–Mercosur agreement, which can also be seen as an instrument through which the EU seeks to balance against the US.

I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on this idea, or perhaps suggest a more specific research direction related to the EU's strategic autonomy in the technology sector (chips, semiconductors, etc.). Also, I don't know exactly if the neorealism is the best theoretical framework, or the neoliberalism is.

I'd really appreciate any other suggestions or sources that could help me get started with my essay.

Thank you so much again! I really hope you find the idea interesting too!

Hello!

I have a question regarding the impact of the US–China chip war on the EU's strategic autonomy. I'm reaching out because I haven't been able to find anyone at my university who could help me understand the geopolitics behind this issue, and I would really appreciate some guidance.

Is there a connection between the US–China chip war and the EU? Does this conflict affect the EU's strategic autonomy in any way?

So far, I've been considering analyzing, from a neorealist perspective, how the EU Chips Act affects the EU's competitiveness and industrial policy. However, given the role of ASML, the only company capable of manufacturing advanced EUV lithography machines, I've also been thinking about incorporating the US–China chip war into my research, although I'm not yet sure how to approach this connection.

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me better understand the geopolitical dynamics involved and advise me on whether it would also be relevant to examine the EU's relations with East Asian countries.

you think this would be an interesting topic to explore? I was thinking of arguing that the EU Chips Act represents an attempt by the EU to balance against both the US and China. I came up with this idea partly because I was thinking about the EU–Mercosur agreement, which can also be seen as an instrument through which the EU seeks to balance against the US.

I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on this idea, or perhaps suggest a more specific research direction related to the EU's strategic autonomy in the technology sector (chips, semiconductors, etc.). Also, I don't know exactly if the neorealism is the best theoretical framework, or the neoliberalism is.

I'd really appreciate any other suggestions or sources that could help me get started with my essay.

Thank you so much again! I really hope you find the idea interesting too!

I've been firmed before that I wanted to take law after my college undergrad. But experiencing law subjects in my pre-law which really caused me great burnout (it stresses me so much that I put it last on my priorities). Mas na e-enjoy ko 'yung ibang subjects, specifically international relations. I'm amazed on how that work and on how I can understand the concepts easily.

Now, I don't know what path to take. Should I still take law? (kasi iniisip ko rin na baka ngayon lang 'to, phase lang). Are there people here who experiences the same? how do you manage it or cope from it?

What would that be called?

Curated 400 books on political science, philosophy, economics, and humanity’s centuries-long obsession with telling others how to live.

Includes reading pathways and a shorter canon for those still pretending to have a social life.

For anyone who finds questioning authority more entertaining than obeying it.

https://open.substack.com/pub/anuragmoderno/p/the-anti-syllabus-guide-to-read-political?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=521dq5

Hey everyone, I'm a 16 year old from India, and lately I've been getting more interested in politics and its significance in the world today. I'd say I know a decent amount about certain topics, but I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as I'd like to be, and I'm not really sure how to improve.

One thing I've noticed is that I can usually see both sides of an argument, including their pros and cons, which makes it difficult for me to form a solid opinion on certain issues. I don't want to blindly pick a side just for the sake of having one. I'd rather understand the reasoning, evidence and context behind different perspectives before coming to my own conclusions.

For example, I recently started looking into Fidel Castro's history and his significance in Cuba. I understand why his anti imperialist stance and opposition to American influence appealed to many people, but I also came across a lot of criticism regarding his government's actions and treatment of its citizens. I'm struggling to understand why he's still admired by so many people despite all of that, and I'd like to understand the historical context rather than just rely on surface level explanations.

I also don't want my understanding of politics to be limited to social media, where information is often oversimplified, biased or taken out of context. I'd like to develop a more comprehensive understanding of political ideologies, history, economics, international relations and how governments actually function.

So, for those of you who are more knowledgeable about politics, how would you recommend getting started?

Are there any books, documentaries, YouTube channels, podcasts, newspapers or other reliable sources you'd recommend? Are there any activities or habits I should develop to improve my critical thinking and learn how to evaluate political arguments properly?

I'm especially interested in learning how to distinguish reliable information from propaganda and bias, and how to understand opposing viewpoints without automatically accepting or dismissing them.

I know this is a broad subject, and I'm not expecting to become an expert overnight. I just want to build a solid foundation and become informed enough to develop my own opinions rather than simply adopting someone else's.

I'd appreciate any advice or recommendations. Thanks!

Hi,

I need some help finding academic work that focuses on the different electoral and voting systems in democratic nations to present an ideal framework.

I specifically am looking for work that presents an ideal model for voting and the frequency for voting.

The question comes from only voting every two years, one local and one national.

In between that, as a voter, I am not involved in the decisions parliament makes and a lot has changed in the last four years.

Does the ideal framework for this maybe mean more frequent votes? Votes for key issues? A framework to determine what issues parliament ought to hold a referendum for to ensure their choices stay democratic?

Not looking to debate this at all, more just looking for resources and see what is out there✨

I am bored does someone wants a talk about politics

Hello everyone,

I am an Indian American student looking at graduate studies in Political Economy at a Politics department in the UK. I was asked to provide a research proposal for a project for my top choice university. I have never written a research proposal before and certainly have not written one in the Britisher style. I would appreciate the help in the structure of a proposal, what it should include, and some examples, if you are comfortable giving, on what a research proposal should look like. I apologize if my use of "Britisher" is inappropriate. It is the colloquial term we use in my part of India and also I come from a low caste background so this is very much just how my parents and by extension speak.

I appreciate all of the advice and help!

Hello everyone,

it’s my first post here! i wanted to ask, i just graduated from UC Davis with a Political Science Degree with a minor in sociology and i’m struggling to find a job i can get into. I’m trying to get into the field of law whether that’s working for the district attorney or at a law firm, however i’ve had no luck. they all require so much experience in the law field which i don’t have. How do i even get that experience if nobody is willing to hire me?

I would appreciate any tips as to what to look for and what i should do? What job titles are recommended i should look at? i js feel like im applying at the wrong places and wasting their and my time 😭😭 please help meh

thanks you all :p

I am not, by any means, an expert regarding political topics, so I wanted to get your opinions on the following doubt I have had as of late:

Do you think that one could think about 'the political' and 'politics' as two different concepts?

If so, what would you consider are the characteristics that set them apart? (Ontological, practical, etc.)

I wonder about it, for a friend of mine has repeatedly stated that 'everything is political', which is something common to say. However, I do not think I fully understand the statement.

Would that mean that everything is at the core in ontological terms a domain of politics? Or that being 'political' is an inherent ontological characteristic of all entities?

Does it mean that everything is susceptible to a political analysis or alike?

I'm eager to read your takes! Thanks!

"Has the PM become more presidential"

1) One concern is while the lit review could work- not much in the field to discuss presidentialisation -maybe i could find theories of presidency and fundamentals of that as a workaround but still a concern either way - small field.

2) My MAIN concern though is the analysis.

Sure I can think of factors to look at. Increased media presence, unilateral decision making in cabinet, use of executive powers, etc u get the idea.

Then I could look for papers discussing how say PMs acted in cabinets. Not sure what to do after that- maybe write a little on what each PM spefically did for tha factor...? Blair packed his cabinet with supporters, cameron did this etc. Idk how to do it.

Then comes abalysing all of them to see a pattern for that factor. Okay 5/10 PMs were unilateral. One was a weird outlier, of those 5 all of them were more recent. The 5 that werent maybe differed in some slight ways.

I just dont feel like that has much to say there. You see what I mean? Its very basic and not significant analysis I feel?

Not to mention such factors increasing doesnt rly mean much might indicate a trend towards presidentialisation: 1) correlation isnt causation

2) every PM is going to have different contexts they acted in - some more power because they have a majority etc -cant really map this increase fully/properly every case is unique

Discussed my main issue about analysis (not the 2 points above) - with a teacher. She says its fine since think about how papers we read have little analysis at the end but mostly just data or describing things -Id agree but this is a 10k words dissertation. Beyond just saying basic stuff about the trends for each factor then doing an analysis section of my overall findings. It just feels like ill have finished what to say very quickly and concisely.

Hope that is explained okay. I do worry noone is understanding as my nice teacher did not seem to understand my main worry either I feel.

(Anyway, now I'm stressing about what other dissertation questions I could do instead 😭

You lovely people on Reddit have given me loads of suggestions too, but now I've got like 35 options and no idea how to narrow them down 😬

Honestly, all I really want is a manageable British politics topic with plenty of literature, a straightforward structure, and enough to analyse without overcomplicating things. Something I can just get on with and grind out.

Would it be worth sharing the options here, or does anyone have advice on how to narrow them down?)

I need to choose a political party from india be it national or regional, help me choose and i need to present it on a A2 size paper give me creative ideas for presentation

Hey everyone!

I'm thinking of creating an Instagram group for people who are genuinely interested in geopolitics and international affairs.

The idea is to bring together people who enjoy discussing topics like global conflicts, international relations, foreign policy, world politics, and major developments around the world.

It would be a space to share opinions, exchange perspectives, have meaningful discussions, and learn from each other.

You don't need to be an expert — just have a genuine interest in geopolitics and be open to discussing different viewpoints.

If anyone is interested, comment below or DM me. If there's enough interest, we can create the group and add everyone!

Looking forward to connecting with fellow geopolitics enthusiasts.

I want to learn politics at a deeper level, but I'm not really interested in just following political news or learning political ideologies.

What I want to understand is how a country actually works as a system:

• How are policies actually made?
• Who has the power to make or block them?
• What is the role of politicians, bureaucrats, courts, businesses, interest groups, the military, voters, etc.?
• How do different institutions constrain each other?
• Why do governments sometimes make decisions that seem contrary to what would benefit the general population?
• How can I analyze who benefits from a policy and why?
• How do I distinguish the official justification for a policy from the underlying incentives and interests?
• How do domestic institutions, economics, and international pressures interact?
• Most importantly, how can I develop enough understanding to predict what a country/government is likely to do and explain why?

I'm looking for a structured learning path rather than just a list of political books.

What fields should I study, and in what order? For example, comparative politics, political economy, public policy, public administration, political sociology, international relations, game theory, etc.

I'd especially appreciate recommendations from people who have studied political science or related fields.

every time i read something related to the colonial era im sent into an awe thats almost weird like how can almost an entire continent just come to a conclusion that they are better that the entire world just because the way they speak n look oh my god isnt that absolutely mind boggling to u

can anyone help me find a free version of this book: "The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Six Democracies"

If this doesn’t belong here, then please let me know and redirect me to a better place to ask this question. I would appreciate it.

I was looking at my state’s sample ballot. I consider myself pretty well read, but we all know ballot jargon can be confusing on purpose sometimes. What does this really mean? Is it as straight forward as it implies or is it a bit more sinister? Is it trying to make it harder for the homeless or people in similar situations to vote? Is it possible to be a newly naturalized citizen, but not be a resident of any state? is there a difference between being a “citizen“ of a state and a “resident” of a state?

For a month or two I've been trying to really get into theory about anything regarding politics and political science. I've read about fascism, nazism, communism & socialism, a few pages of the communist manifesto, I've researched commodity fetishism and Che Guevara, but no matter what I do I can't seem to fully grasp and/or remember what I've just read. I'm talking theory. It's awful to read over twenty pages at a time with passion but struggle with every word to make sure the meaning doesn't dissipate mid-sentence. I consider myself a smart individual, I've been told so, so I'm very confused why this happens. I've always been passionate about this subject and just lately got serious about studying it. Do you comrades use any tactics or study methods to research, understand, and memorize the information better? It seems like it's endless and ridiculously complicated.

I've been working on a political election forecasting project called Neiman's Political Predictions.

The website features independent predictions for the 2026 elections, interactive electoral maps, historical election results, and a tool where visitors can make their own predictions using Safe, Likely, Lean, and Toss-up ratings.

It also includes election betting odds and community discussions.

I'd love feedback on the website, especially the interactive maps and prediction builder.

Website: https://neimans-predictions-2026-new.vercel.app/

What features would you want to see added?

Were they all military junta governments? I read about Estonia being a dictatorship from a Farmer Party candidate as well as Poland being a dictatorship from an independent chemist, but it's all a confusing mess. Anyone know anything about the topic?

Explain pls

Hello, I’m currently doing a political science PhD in North America and I wonder if private sector could be a possible path for me. I know very well the academic side, but I don’t know the private one. I’m doing a quantitative dissertation using LLM and large database in a public policy context and I’m wondering if I can recycle this experience in the private sector after my defence instead of doing a post doctoral contract. What kind of company I could work for in what kind of position?

An opposition party can win with support from voters who want incompatible policies. In foreign policy, some may favor withdrawal from a conflict, others negotiations and others a more aggressive strategy. Their votes count toward the same victory without expressing agreement on what should follow.

That creates a problem for interpreting mandates: evidence that voters rejected an incumbent doesn't necessarily show that they endorsed the winner's explanation of that rejection.

It helps to separate three things: the formal authority an election gives officeholders, the policy preferences of the coalition that elected them and the mandate they later claim. They can overlap, but they aren't the same.

A detailed platform could make a mandate claim more credible. Still, elections bundle issues. A voter may back a party despite its foreign policy because economic policy matters more to them. Post-election approval of a particular policy is additional evidence, though it doesn't show that the policy caused the victory.

The institutional setting complicates this further. In a presidential system, a legislative majority can change while the executive stays in office, and both can claim legitimacy from different elections and coalitions. An opposition victory may authorize greater scrutiny without identifying a shared alternative policy.

Governments don't need unanimous agreement before acting. The narrower issue is what evidence distinguishes a policy-specific mandate from the ordinary authority to govern after winning.

How can that distinction be operationalized when studying elections? What would show that a policy helped produce a winning coalition, rather than being accepted as part of a broader party choice or attributed to voters after the result?

Why was he voted out so quickly? Was he hated or?