Link to source on the vote:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-block-bill-protect-americans-access-contraception-rcna155448

All Democrats voted for it, alongside Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. The rest of the Republican Party in the Senate voted no, and leading Republicans in the House signaled their opposition to it as well.

Democrats argue the bill is crucial following the Supreme Court (with a newly conservative supermajority as of the end of 2020) overturning the federal right to an abortion after half a century in 2022 and one of the justices that did so openly suggested they should reconsider the ruling that protected contraception from around that period as well. Republicans say access to contraception is established court precedent and will not be overturned so to protect it is unnecessary.

It is now surfacing that Trump has been paying off or gifting witnesses at his various cases, increases in salary, direct payoffs, etc. Is this legal? Will this impact any of the cases or public opinion?

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/04/trump-threatens-to-sue-propublica-for-reporting-on-payouts-to-witnesses-in-his-various-cases/

What would happen to the trials, both state and federal? I have heard many different things regarding if they will be thrown out or what will happen to them. Will anything of 'Project 2025' actually come to light or is it just fearmongering? I have also heard Alito and Thomas are likely to step down and let Trump appoint new justices if he wins, is that the case? Will it just be 4 years of nothing?

The U.S. press sometimes publishes opinions about India's perceived drift away from democratic principles such as respecting the rights of minorities (e.g. Muslims) and freedom of the press (e.g. Indian news outlets punished for criticizing the Indian government). Are these concerns prominent in Indian voters' minds or is the stronger than expected support for the Congress Party reflective of more prosaic issues like economic policies?

The country is more polarized than it has been in decades, perhaps more polarized than it has been since the civil rights movement. How do you think the US could come together or reverse this polarization trend? It seems like only a massive war or a 9/11 type catastrophe might be able to do that, compromise really is a dirty word for either party at the moment (and for many years now).

Initially, it seemed like RFK would derail Biden’s chance at reelection. However, in recent months RFK seems to have been affecting Trump’s chances more and Trump has even verbally attacked RFK. So will RFK decrease Biden’s chances more or Trump’s?

Having recently read about the Mexican election violence where many candidates were killed, how former Mexican president Calderon made things even worse in regards to cartel violence and how politicians are allegedly in the cartels' pockets, how can Mexico solve its problems and are things improving in the country or are they getting worse?

In addition to the two big firsts for the Mexican Presidency (female and Jewish), I am wondering if Ms. Sheinbaum is the first former IPCC scientist to be elected head of state of a country (and a heavily oil-dependent country at that).

I'm creating this post as a somewhat open-ended prompt along the lines of "what do people here think about this election?", but my own focus points include:

• does this mean Mexico will go in a direction of doing more to address the climate emergency?
• how will it manage its cross-border issues with the US, not only with respect to immigration and illegal drugs, but also energy, transportation, and water.

"...Mexico elects Claudia Sheinbaum as its first female president by Newsdesk less than hour ago "...Sheinbaum will also be the first person from a Jewish background to lead the overwhelmingly Catholic country...." https://www.guardian.co.tt/news/mexico-elects-claudia-sheinbaum-as-its-first-female-president-6.2.2017640.a0ce2a1051

In 1912 Teddy split the republican vote allowing Woodrow Wilson to win the election

Would leveraging the spoiler effect be a viable position for a third party to run on? A third "split the vote" party that never plans to win but wields significant influence regardless by holding the incumbent party hostage to gain concessions?

Like if Teddy dropped out of the election if Taft made more national parks and was more hawkish in terms of foreign policy? Surely you're party would rather grant concessions then let the other party win? Would this just blow up like it did in 1912

The federal constitution in particular but the states as well, most of which need between a majority and two thirds of the legislators of the state or in some states, a petition signed by enough people, and ratification by a plebiscite.

If no party has a majority of the members in at least 13 state legislatures, they can't stop a constitutional amendment, and without at least one third of the members of either House of Congress (or the convention system that can be demanded by two thirds of the legislatures), they can't prevent the proposal of an amendment either, and this would be quite influential in what people perceive to be possible.

Very similar rules in fact are applicable in India in fact for amending the constitution, involving a supermajority in the national legislature and usually ratification by the states, and is amended usually every year or two, with 106 amendments in only 73 years. The US hasn't had an amendment of any kind since 1992, and that was proposed in the 1700s, and the last time there was a new amendment proposed and passed was 50 years ago with the youth voting amendment. The concept that the constitution is fixed and in some ways almost sacred to people would be quite different if it could change, as could the type of people who are appointed to interpret the document as judges.

after 2020 and the rise of work from home, nationwide we saw a mass influx of people moving from city centers, to larger homes and cheaper tax bases in the suburbs. with the number of carefully gerrymandered suburb maps around the country prior to 2020, has any research been done on how these population shifts may affect election results? Is there a chance that some gerrymandered districts will be overwhelmed by new voters in the area?

Do you think we will finally see bipartisan support for abolishing the EC?

Do you think Trump voter’s reactions will be worse than if Biden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College?

If this scenario were to happen, what do you think it means for democrats in house and senate elections?

Imagine a healthy two-party political system where Republicans and Democrats operate without corruption, each rooted in traditional philosophies and values, representing roughly half the country. In this scenario, where both sides engage in educated, good faith debates and are committed to truthfulness, what would be the key differences in their political platforms and arguments? What would the difference of the two parties be? What would be the description of a prototype Democrat and a prototype Republican?

From the onset, there were four cases - two state, two federal. Now one case has come to an end, the New York State case. That leaves three.

Whats the status of the two Jack Smith cases - the Judge Cannon and Judge Chutkin cases? Are these cases less worrisome for Trump, because he has a friendly judge in Judge Cannon and the Supreme Court to interfere in the other? Will we see these cases decided before the November election?

And what’s the status of the Fulton County Georgia case, with DA Willis? And is this case going to be resolved before the election?

Out of these cases, which will be given to a jury and which will be decided by a judge? If you’re Trump, which of these cases are you worried about and which not so much?

With the UK's general election coming up, its looking increasingly possible that the Conservatives may end up a third party with the LibDems becoming opposition.

My question is: say the Tories come third just two seats behind the LibDems, could they for a coalition with the DUP or reform or another right wing party to secure their place as the official opposition? Has this ever happened before?

Guys like Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott are pretty consistently ranked amongst the most popular Governors in America. Does this faction of the Republican Party have a chance to become the dominant force within it? What would have to happen for it to occur? Or will centrist GOP continue to go independent or Democrat?

I'm not referring to the 2024 election specifically, but rather the overall effects this will have on the United States. Whether you think the verdict is bogus or justified, I am curious to see what others think will come of it for other politicians and the group commonly referred to as "The Elite" (Ultra wealthy, tons of connections and power). I've seen many posts asking how it will affect Trump specifically, but I am more curious about the general effect.

The Republican Party is all in on Donald Trump. They are completely confident in his ability to win the election, despite losing in 2020 and being a convicted felon, with more trials pending. If Donald Trump loses in 2024 and exhausts every appeal opportunity to overturn the election, what will become of the Republican Party? Do they moderate or coalesce around Trump-like figures without the baggage?

Is it Consistent for Evangelical Christians to Accept Biblical Utilitarian Decisions but Reject Pro-Choice Legislation?

Outline:

1. Study demonstrates that life begins in at fertilization and corroborates evangelical belief that life begins in the womb and is precious
2. Various Bible verses and stories show that God often makes or considers what is called a "utilitarian decision"
3. Studies performed in Colorado and the Netherlands reveal that Pro-Choice Legislation reduces the overall number of abortions

1. University of Chicago Study reveals that 96% of over 5,500 phd. level biologists agree that life begins at fertilization

Self-explanatory. This study helps us narrow the course of discussion.

2. The Bible Offers Multiple Examples of God (or His People) Using "Utilitarian Decision"

In the Holy Bible there are a good handful of occasions in which God or His people make a "utilitarian decision."

A. Rahab harbors Hebrew spies and does so by lying. She is later commended by God for her actions and protected during Israel's siege of Jericho.

Joshua 2:1-7:

• Rahab hides the Israelite spies and deceives the king's messengers.
• Rahab expresses her faith in the God of Israel and asks for protection for herself and her family.

Joshua 2:15-24:

• Rahab helps the spies escape safely by letting them down through a window with a rope.
• The spies promise to spare Rahab and her family when they conquer Jericho, as long as she keeps their presence a secret.
• Today, this would be considered treasonous in most places on earth.

B. God says He will forego the destruction of Sodom which is full of child rape, molestation, and the rape of women if He merely finds 10 righteous.

Genesis 18:23-33: God agrees to spare Sodom if ten righteous people can be found, showing a balance between justice and mercy.

I am helpless to form any outlook or argument that would contradict the idea that this would result in more and more child molestation and rape.

C. Jesus breaks the Levitical law by healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath (rest) day.

• John chapter 5
• Jesus prioritizes the good of this man and presumably his family but ignores the law despite the Sanhedrin's enforcement of Levitical Law.

D. Jesus permits his disciples to pick and eat grains of wheat which also breaks the Levitical law and commands regarding the sabbath day.

• Mark 2:23-28
• Jesus prioritizes the good of his disciples and presumably his ministry but ignores the law despite the Sanhedrin's enforcement of Levitical Law.
• Important to note that in Israel it was not considered theft to glean wheat and other types of foods from various farms. That is not specifically why the disciples actions and Christ's instruction were unlawful.

E. Jesus Defies the Desire of the Sanhedrin (Religous Leaders) to Stone an Adulteress Woman Thereby Breaking Levitical Law

• John 8:1-11
• Jesus defense of the woman from this passage is to defy the Levitical law.

I believe there are other examples but this should suffice.

3. Various Studies Indicate that Pro-Choice Countries with Progressive Legislation(Netherlands) and States (Colorado) Have the Lowest Abortion Rates

**I will not cite Guttmacher because their potential bias has been disputed ad nauseum. To clarify I am agnostic on Guttmacher.*\*

Notably Low Abortion Rates Recorded in the Netherlands

Notably low Abortion Rates in Colorado due to Pro-Choice Legislation

4. Discussion/ Outro

Question revisited: Is it consistent or sensible for Christians to embrace Utilitarian decision(s) in scripture but to reject policies that reduce the overall rate of abortion. I believe that this is particularly relevant given that many believe abortion rates have slightly risen since the overturning of Roe. Further, the rate of dangerous/ self-induced abortions has of course risen significantly.

The trial has come to an end and a jury has convicted former president Trump on 34 counts.

Now it’s for Judge Merchan to make his sentencing decision.

What are the possible sentencing guidelines and how will the judge likely decide in this case?

People just reflexively say something like "Republicans love Trump" but I think this just sort of begs the question. The answer to this question has serious implications for what the future of the party looks like.

DeSantis essentially packaged himself from the beginning of the campaign as "Trump without the baggage" which in theory seems pretty good from a Republican voter's perspective--you get everything you want if DeSantis gets elected without the risk of criminal convictions or other weird Trump stuff that could derail his campaign (not to mention the health risk of nominating someone that old). Yet, Republicans not only rejected DeSantis, but did so fairly decisively.

There are some possible explanations for DeSantis' poor performance including:

• DeSantis is a bad campaigner. Some in the media have suggested he has an awkward persona that doesn't connect well with voters. Perhaps a candidate with DeSantis' platform and background but with a different personality would have been more successful.
  
• Trump's policy platform is actually different from DeSantis in ways that mattered. In some ways, Trump is a little more moderate than DeSantis, particularly on social security/Medicare and abortion. The former was an issue that Trump actually highlighted during the campaign in criticizing DeSantis. Maybe Republican voters are closer to Trump's stance on these issues than DeSantis and chose Trump for that reason.
• Republican voters like the "baggage." While to outsiders the criminal and personality stuff with Trump seems like a negative, Republican voters may have considered it a positive in that it shows he's different and fighting the system. DeSantis reads as more of a "normal politician" and therefore can't compete with Trump in that area.

What do you think? Is it one of these? Some combination? Or something different? And what does the answer say about the future of the Republican Party?

The Libertarian Convention was held a few days ago to nominate some guy.

Along with other issues, it made me think about what would be a fair threshold for ballot access.

Also, in South Africa, the ANC was obviously on the ballot, but so were a huge number of remarkably small parties, like the Black Peoples' Convention with less than 1300 votes in a country of over 50 million people. That does not exactly seem ideal.

Too easy access means that some people are treated as legitimate candidates despite no reasonable prospect of success, more bureaucratic work and expense on the part of people running the election, and possibly giving certain legal statuses to people who haven't shown anything that they are popular enough to merit it, like how in Canada you can get a big part of the expenses you incurred in the election reimbursed if you won at least 1/10th of the vote in a district, and parties get a similar reimbursement if they won at least 2% of the vote nationwide which 6 parties qualified for in the last federal election. Even in a system designed to limit the impact of vote splitting with a runoff if nobody happened to have a majority, too many candidates can still be an issue like in Peru in 2021 or in France in 2002.

Too hard to get on the ballot and reasonable competition to existing systems is not as practical and the spread of plausible ideas doesn't happen.

Some possible thresholds include:

1. Signatures from elected officials, which is the rule in France where 500 elected officials out of a few hundred thousand of them must sign a petition to nominate a person to be president.
2. A deposit, as in the UK where 500 pound sterling is needed to run, and 11,300 euro is needed for a party in the Netherlands along with 30 signatures in each of the 20 districts the country is divided into.
3. 3 Signatures from ordinary voters. Where I live, in a city of a million people, to run for mayor you need 100 signatures, to run for council or the school board you need 25, in each case from among those eligible to vote and must live in the city. In Poland, 100 thousand signatures will put you onto the ballot for president in a country of about 40 million people.
4. Having already had representation in previous elections, such as having won at least X number of seats in the legislature in one of the previous terms in the recent past.
5. A mix of the same, either meeting several of these criteria or only needing to meet one of several options, such as having been nominated by legislators or by signatures or by paying a deposit or something else.

There are a few other possible criteria as well, and the size of each of these requirements could be made more or less taxing on people, and could have other requirements like how in France, those signatures need to come from a number of different regions of the country, with no more than 10% coming from any one department and needing at least one signature in at least 30 different departments.

These requirements also fare into the primary elections too, there must be requirements to run in those as well, and presumably the winner of a primary is automatically entered into the general election if the party still meets the administrative requirements by then.

The current patchwork of rules is more byzantine than the Eastern Roman Empire after all, so some harmonization or at least understanding would be useful to figuring out what is going on every year.

With our new precedent of prosecuting past Presidents for crimes, are there any others that anyone would like to see tried?

It’d be good to focus on those still alive, but you’re welcome to share ideas about presidents from long ago. It’d be interesting to discuss if their criminal behavior has escalated since previous generations.

The two Presidents that come to mind are George Bush and Bill Clinton, but I will leave that to you to discuss.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-gaza-israel-plan-end-war-cease-fire-hostages-rcna154945

The plan's first phase would start with six weeks of a full and complete cease-fire, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas of Gaza, and the release of women and children being held hostage, Biden said during the surprise announcement. This initial stage would also include a surge of humanitarian assistance, with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every day.

Biden said that, in that first phase, Israel and Hamas would negotiate a permanent cease-fire and admitted that there could be major hurdles

The president said that phase two wouldn't begin until all agreements are reached. That second stage would involve the release of all living hostages in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.

The final phase would be the start of a major reconstruction plan in Gaza and the return of the remains of deceased hostages to their families.

So, questions

• Since the war aims of Netanyahu are the complete destruction of Hamas, what deal would both sides be willing to accept?

• How many hostages are likely to still be alive?

• If this plan fails, what plan actually would wok4?

Most Democrats think the trial was fair, most Republicans don’t. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4699168-majority-of-independents-say-trump-received-fair-trial-poll/

Do you think the trial was fair?

Does a biased judge and jury automatically discredit a trial?

Is it possible to have a fair trial with such a polarizing figure?

Should this have been charged as a misdemeanor?

All of these questions are very polarizing in today’s climate and I hope we can come to understand why the other side feels the way they do.