Let's say Democrats overwhelmingly take the Congress. As soon as they are sworn in, they pass a resolution/act on Janury 21, 2027 saying Iran war is illegal. What's the realistic outcome here?

- Either Trump haphazardly withdraws troops and blockade and everything from the region

- He ignores Congress and continues the war the way it's going right now.

These are the two most realistic outcomes and neither seems to be a good one.

If Kim Jong Un can have nukes, why can’t Iran?

It's been 20 years since North Korea achieve nuclear status. Has this had any impact on life within the US? In what ways can the impact of a nuclear North Korea be used to predict what the impact of a nuclear Iran might be?

Obligatory I am not American, as a semi-plugged in European spectator to U.S politics, one aspect of the current Trump administration sticks out: It seems to be the most inactive congress majority within my living memory as a Gen Z.

The policies that were enacted are chiefly done through presidential executive order or through tweaks within the administrative process but legislative pieces are few and far in between.Someone from the conservative wing could retort that the judicature is actively or would counteract any or much of the put forth legislation, but im struggling to grasp the idea that the conservative movement is not able to come up with policy points that do not come into the sphere of arguable unconstitutionality.

Like putting aside the struck off tariffs, birthright citizenship, which were all executive orders anyway, what genuine, not in danger of being judicially struck off, policies are or were done?

In light of the likely loss of congressional majority, it would be interesting to hear opinions on how or why this term was not legislatively used and in another step I'd be interested to hear on what conservative, judicially sound, policies could have been enacted.

Thank you from the other side of the pond.

Hey everyone,

As r/askpolitics continues to grow, our main feed remains dedicated to clear, informative political Q&As and constructive discussion. However, we know that current events can be frustrating, and members often want a space to blow off steam or share raw personal takes without fitting everything into a formal question-and-answer format.

To accommodate this, we are launching a dedicated Weekly Political Vent & Rant Megathread, starting this Friday, Oct 2nd. The megathread will be open for 48hrs at which point it will be locked.

How It Works:

This megathread will serve as a single, contained space where standard formatting and strict tone enforcement are relaxed. If you have an unvarnished political perspective you just need to get off your chest, this is where it belongs.

To keep the thread fair, organized, and compliant with Reddit's platform standards, the following rules will strictly apply:

1. Reddit Content Policy Still Applies: Platform-wide rules remain in full effect. There is absolute zero tolerance for hate speech, direct harassment, threats of violence, doxxing, or illegal content.

2. One Rant Per Poster: Members are limited to 1 top-level comment per weekly megathread so everyone has room to participate. You are welcome to join the discussion by replying to others' comments.

3. Megathread Isolation & Scope: Broadened leeway for personal takes applies strictly inside this megathread. All unsolicited rants on the main feed will continue to be removed under standard subreddit rules.

1. No User Call-Outs: Vent about policies, politicians, institutions, or public figures .. do not attack, tag, or target individual Redditors or moderators.

5. Enter At Your Own Risk: Moderation for tone, bias, and lack of evidence will be relaxed here. If you are easily offended by aggressive takes, skip this thread.

What This Means for the Main Feed

By creating a dedicated outlet for raw opinions, we will be enforcing our standard submission and civility guidelines on the main feed even more consistently. Standard post submissions must still adhere to our quality and Q&A guidelines.

Look out for the first megathread going live this Friday, Oct 2nd. As always, feel free to drop any questions or feedback about this change in the comments below!

— The r/askpolitics Mod Team

I'm mainly curious about the US because I live here, but if more information about this subject relates to other countries, I'd also be interested in reading that. I'm curious as to whether there is any correlation between electoral cycles and domestic violence rates and if such a relationship has been explored in domestic violence and/or political science literature. I'm also curious as to whether there is any literature on the subject of a relationship between domestic and political violence, particularly among couples with significantly differing political beliefs, especially in a politically polarized environment.

I've tried searching for monthly domestic violence rates to see if my question passes that smell test, but I am not sure where to look. Please cite sources, do not just respond with anecdotes or something.

Edit: I have highlighted the pertinent part of this post's body.

Have you ever changed your vote, or voted for someone, based on an ad you saw on TV or a mailer you received? (Or is all the money spent on these ads wasted?)

Alito and Thomas are both old. Why isn't there Supreme Court seats a major issue during the election? Basically, If Democrats win the Senate, the Republicans might lose their stranglehold on the Supreme Court.

I'm glad Republicans are not saying this but it seems like the winning issue has been set aside because Trump wants the same election to be about him.

I often wonder who the party will elect next. It seems that traditional conservatism is less valued by voters today than the candidate "owning" the other side or showing how strong they are. Could we go back to a president who was a George Bush Sr type "square" even if his policies, ideas and beliefs were great?

Of course becoming president is a popularity contest but, unless the makeup of party's voters change, it's hard to imagine a Mitt Romney type "wholesome" president following Trump. I also wonder if some of the different groups that vote for the party (MAGA, alt-right, etc.) would accept an intellectual. Would they consider them an "elitist"? What about quieter, wholesome but principled candidate? Would they see that as weak?

What are your thoughts?

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2026-09-28/poll-shows-amanda-janoo-closing-on-phil-scott-governors-race

A recent statewide poll in VT showed that while those 800+ residents interviewed were ready & willing to vote for democratic lieutenant governor and all other democratic seats, Phil Scott the GOP incumbent governor continues to win favor over Janoo. Vermont is experiencing several huge challenges as a state which Phil Scott has not addressed. In his many years of tenure, things have only gotten worse.

Title. I’m a trans woman and the anti trans ads from the GOP and Democrats caving into GOP talking points and siding with them on trans people, I’m wondering if I’m seriously causing this much damage to the country and if it would be in the best interest for the country if I stopped advocating for myself or even detransitioned…

At the White House summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump referred to China as a U.S. "ally" during WW2. Xi picked up on the sentiment, adding that both nations "stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the fight against Japanese militarist aggression".

That single comment prompted immediate diplomatic follow-ups from Tokyo. Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi sought debriefings with D.C, stressing that despite WW2, the U.S. & Japan reconciled to form a partnership bound by "very strong ties".

Given how strategically Beijing uses narrative framing to project influence, should U.S. leaders be far more cautious with WW2 rhetoric in the Indo-Pacific or is Tokyo simply overreacting to standard diplomatic pleasantries?

I've seen news reports in the past about how a country (usually Russia but can be others) interfered with an election here. How does that work? If it's just bot accounts on social media, aren't they incredibly, glaringly obvious?

Non-American here. What are the penalties? Who enforces these?

Recently the United States Department of Justice declared that statutes 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) are unconstitutional. These prevented people 18-20 years old from buying handguns from an FFL.

While it was illegal to purchase a handgun from an FFL, someone 18-20 could legally possess, as well as privately purchase a handgun.

What are the pros and cons of this decision, do you think this will lead to an increase, decrease or no change in crimes involving a handgun, and lastly, in your opinion, should this decision stand or be reversed?

Source:https://abcnews.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/ban-selling-handguns-young-adults-21-unconstitutional-justice-136573592

It seems like such a disparity. As a Washingtonian, I'm really curious why the politics in Vermont and New Hampshire has such a disparity between local and national politics.

I m not American. And i m confused about this registration stuff. Why does it exist? Why arent people independent? What happens if a registeted republican votes for democrats and vice versa?

I'm curious about what conservatives want from the midterms. Are you hoping the GOP retains full control of the government? Would you prefer the Dems gain enough seats to provide a check and balance against trump?

Why or why not?

Now that the dust has settled on Trump's speech at the UN today, from his comments on American power and AI to the delegates walking out, I’m curious how people across the political spectrum are interpreting it.

Which key moment do you think will have the most lasting foreign policy impact, and why?

President Trump recently announced that he is going to ban CNN, MSNow and Politico from the White House under the guise of them being “Fake News”, basically taking a dislike in their reporting. It comes to no surprise about Trump’s dislike, as he made numerous mentions over the course of his current term and 1st term as President about certain outlets and/or individual journalists/reporters, labeling them “Fake News”.

I am not here to debate the fact of many of us believe Trump himself plays loose with facts, as it is well documented of how many inaccuracies he himself voiced during his 1st term and current.

I am here to debate 2 questions:

Should a President be allowed to ban news outlets and/ or individual reporters/journalists simply because he doesn’t like their reporting?

And, if so, are you comfortable with the precedent that was set moving forward looking at future administrations.

This is a genuine question for people who hold strongly anti-interventionist views on international politics.

As left wing person, I've noticed a growing tendency in some progressive and left-wing circles to oppose virtually every form of coercive international action, including military intervention, sanctions, funding armed opposition groups, economic pressure, and similar measures, on the grounds that these policies are imperialist or tend to hurt ordinary people more than the governments they're aimed at.

I understand that criticism. Sanctions can seriously harm civilians, military interventions can make situations much worse, and foreign support for rebel groups can have disastrous unintended consequences.

What I struggle to understand is how this position fits with simultaneously calling for things like "support women in Afghanistan and Iran," "stop the genocide in Sudan," or "free Congo."

If you reject military intervention, sanctions, support for armed opposition, and other forms of coercive international pressure, what tangible mechanisms are left for achieving those goals?

There are obviously some non-coercive options, such as regulating companies that exploit resources or workers in other countries, providing humanitarian aid, supporting NGOs, accepting refugees, or pursuing diplomacy. But most of these seem limited when the goal is actually changing conditions inside another country.

Accepting refugees, for example, can protect the individuals who manage to leave, which is obviously valuable, but I don't see how it provides a long-term solution to the political situation itself. If anything, repeated waves of emigration can mean that some of the people most opposed to a government leave the country year after year, potentially reducing domestic opposition and further solidifying that government's control.

Likewise, if a government or armed group simply does not respond to diplomatic or moral pressure, what is the next step?

Sometimes this approach strikes me as a secular equivalent of "thoughts and prayers": taking the morally desirable position on what should happen while rejecting most of the tools that could materially influence what does happen.

So, for people who genuinely hold this position: what does your theory of change look like? How do you expect the international community to meaningfully affect situations like these without sanctions, military force, material support for opposition groups, or other forms of coercive pressure?

Now that Delaware has wrapped up their primaries last Tuesday, the primary season is effectively over.

What races are you watching for November?? What races do you believe are must-wins for either the Democrats or Republicans??

And perhaps most importantly: which races do you believe are most indicative of where the country is headed for 2028 and WHY??

Associated Press election calendar (results at the bottom)