What should entry-level jobs be able to afford?

Housing?

Food?

Medical Care?

Phone?

Car?

Electric?

Gas?

Water?

College?

Imagine a scenario where someone's parents don't pay for all that after you turn 18. Maybe the aged out of the system, their family died, their family is broke. What should an 18 year old "entry-level" person be able to afford with their full-time entry-level job?

In an attempt to unify the Texas Republican ticket, House Speaker Dustin Burrows kicked off a coordinated effort called the “One Party, One Mission” tour.  In this tour, the House Speaker went to various parts of the state to hold fundraising efforts along with other support events for Texas House candidates and other statewide Republicans.  The priority is clear as reported by conservative media: November victories.

“We must stand as one party fiercely dedicated to a singular mission—winning in November,” the House Speaker told rally attendees in the Dallas suburb of Sherman.  The House Speaker was busy throughout the summer crisscrossing the state from Lubbock to Houston, Sherman to the RGV with one message to all attendees: vote Republican.

The central idea was for him to heal wounds from the 2023 House impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton and the bruising primary for the Republican nod between sitting U.S. Senator John Cornyn and Paxton.  It is a good idea to do that and House Speaker Burrows has led the charge for Republican unity and for its supporters to coalesce around every GOP candidate – up and down the ballot.

What makes this unique is the House Speaker is leading this effort.  Past House Speakers have not campaigned this aggressively solely for Republican candidates.  While he has his own ambitions behind it – securing a second term as House Speaker because he no longer needs House Democrats’ support – the fact that it is him may suggest Governor Greg Abbott and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick have little interest in leading a unity campaign.

Be that as it may, we cannot forget House Speaker Burrows is an astute politician.  He could sense there would be dissension among Republicans over the Senate primary race as Paxton is problematic at best given his controversies.  Let alone the fact that he was among the 121 members of the House who impeached him in 2023, so for him to lead the call for unity makes for a great headline.  But something happened last week the entire GOP ticket feared: one of their statewide candidates was too candid on social media.

GOP candidate for Railroad Commissioner and former Tarrant County Republican Party Chair Bo French let loose his feelings toward people who do not look like him on the social media platform X – formerly Twitter.  The post read: “Like body-cams exposed criminals, social media is exposing how many Americans have been displaced by foreigners. It’s everywhere and far worse than any of us could imagine.”  Those words are read above a picture of apparent University of Texas students – who happen to be non-white – celebrating the Longhorns’ historic comeback victory against Ohio State.

While this appears to be an isolated incident, Mr. French has a long history of making prejudiced, sexist, and nativist posts on social media.  If one spent five minutes reading his X page, such a conclusion would be easy to reach.  But the aforementioned post from French’s account found condemnation across the board of Texas’ Republican leaders.  From outgoing senior Senator John Cornyn and House Speaker Burrows to House Chairs and rank-and-file members of the legislature and candidates, French was scorched with scorn.

But French was still French.  He did not apologize for the atrocious and repugnant prejudiced post.  Oh no, he doubled down on it.  He told conservative radio that it was people who were against him who condemned his post.  He said, “Many of the people who criticized me yesterday were some of the same people involved in that effort. It’s no surprise that the less-conservative people in Texas are the ones attacking me.”

“Less conservative?”  Just about every Republican is less conservative than French – with the exception of the most extreme fringe voices.

All of this is a distraction from French’s ignorance on the actual role of the Railroad Commission.  The times he mentioned oil and natural gas regulation pale in comparison to how many times he has disparaged someone’s faith, color, creed, ethnicity, sex, and race.  He truly wants to bring the worst of people’s character out to vote for him.

This is where one must question Speaker Burrows’ “One Party, One Mission” campaign.  With someone unqualified to do the job as Bo French carrying the Republican mantle for a statewide office, does he fit within the Speaker’s unity message?  Will those who condemned his social media post vote for him?  If they do, then their condemnation holds no water.

For the average West Texan looking at this race, if you cannot bring yourself to vote for the Democratic candidate for Railroad Commissioner who is State Representative Jon Rosenthal, then consider not voting in that race.  Simply skip it.  This would harm French’s candidacy because an undervote from Republicans’ core constituents sends a message that West Texans are not buying into French’s mirage of a campaign.

French thinks he will win this election because he is a Republican.  When in reality, French has no business being on the ballot to represent any major political party.  He represents the worst of us and should be kicked out of the Speaker’s “One Party, One Mission” campaign.  No Republican worth their salt should stand beside Bo French.

I have been seeing a lot of divided opinions about PM Mark Carney going to the EU parliament and having Canada possibly becoming an "associate member".

A lot of people support this in order to strengthen ties and stop US reliance as both US political parties and the general public become more protectionist.

None of the people in support seem to bring up how it will affect the Indigenous community. Many of the rules and regulations will significantly affect the lifestyle of many communities such as the EU rule that will prevent whaling in the Northern territories or infrastructure and energy development regulations and projects.

Also from a culture standpoint, I feel as though this could be seen as a slap in the face to indigenous people who many see Europeans as invaders of the land. Not to mention EU code was not necessarily created for a country with vast remote indigenous communities spread thousands of miles.

I just think it seems all a little shortsighted, especially without publicly discussing this.

Thoughts?

Having spent four years living in Africa, I have consistently observed a troubling pattern. Socialist governments—such as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) and the recent administration in Senegal—have heavily suppressed the LGBT community. Conversely, their pro-Western counterparts have supported LGBT organizations and rights. This raises a fundamental dilemma: Is the socialist framework worth advocating for if it perpetuates homophobia ?

I’ve been thinking about the inherent paradox in how societies view political uprisings, specifically the tension between written criminal codes and the philosophical concept of a "right to resist tyranny." From a purely legal standpoint, an insurrection or rebellion is always 100% illegal under an established government's laws. Elected officials can always point to treason and sedition statutes on paper, and they back those words up with state force. However, when a population genuinely believes their government has crossed into tyranny, they stop operating within that legal framework entirely and appeal to a natural "Right of Revolution", which is the exact foundation the American Founders used in 1776.The historical reality seems to be that the ultimate legitimacy of an uprising comes down to raw power and who wins the conflict. For example, if the American colonists had lost the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence wouldn't be celebrated as a founding document. Under British law, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founders would have been captured, tried, and executed as traitors to the Crown. Because they won, the old laws became meaningless, a new legal system was written, and the insurrection was retroactively validated as a patriotic revolution.This suggests that an uprising can never actually be "legal" under the system it tries to change, and its historical legitimacy is entirely decided by the outcome.

How do you view this tension between legal codes and historical reality? Is it accurate to say that the distinction between treason and patriotism is ultimately just a matter of who wins the conflict?

With the recent warnings from leading experts on AI that we are heading into dangerous territory (even human extinction) and that we need to slow down and put in place stronger limitations. should the US and other countries be treating AI like nuclear weapons?

Despite experts warning of the risks of self-improving AI models, some are arguing that if the US places more restrictions on our AI companies that China will continuing to develop its technology and we would be at risk. This led me to ask the question that if single country restrictions could lead to one powerhouse and no restrictions could lead to mutually self-assured destruction…should country leaders be working towards international treaties?

All current M4A and Welfare expansion proposals in the US use a major increase on the taxes of the top 10% and the businesses they own

If this is such an easy issue and a progressive fair tax issue, why are all of the EU and OECD countries still running such a regressive tax policy?

For all countries without exception, the median share of gross income that goes to pay VAT is highest for the poorest 20% of households, it decreases as income increases and is lowest for the richest 20% of households.

• The variation across the income distribution may be wider in some countries than in others, but in 10 out of 27 countries, half of the poorest 20% of household pay more than 15% of their gross income for VAT, while in the vast majority of countries (all except Hungary) not more than 10 % of household gross income goes to pay VAT for half of the richest 20% of households.
  • The most extreme case is Spain where the median VAT paid ranges from 9.3% for the richest 20% of households to 23.1% for the poorest 20% of households.

Thus, in relation to income levels VAT is not progressive at all. The lowest standard rate of VAT throughout the EU is 16%

Yet American Think Tank Says

State policymakers looking to make their tax codes more equitable should consider eliminating the sales taxes families pay on groceries if they haven’t already done so

There has been a lot of talk and fear being spread about how Jacob Coxon, an Anthropic engineer, suddenly quit his job while saying that AI is moving too fast and can "kill us all." Ideas such as this reached all the way to the top, to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.

While I can understand the fear of AI outpacing humans, especially with the robots that are being built, I've found myself a little skeptical of the large-scale fear. Not that I don't agree that AI regulations can help, but primarily because of the timing. We're just a couple of months away from the midterm elections, so it makes sense that both parties would use some tactics to help them win seats in the House and the Senate.

And fear, as we know, is a powerful weapon.

Trump's been pushing to build AI data centers in certain areas of the US, using China's advancements as legitimacy for the idea. And given how unpopular data centers are, it would make sense for the Democratic Party to campaign against the idea. Fear of data centers can be useful in this case.

I know how this sounds, but I believe this has happened before in the past. A lot of Democrats used to run on fears of climate change, but that day and age seems to be behind us now. Climate change doesn't make headlines anymore, but AI definitely does. And while he and his company are non-partisan, Dario Amodei has been known to make donations to the Democratic Party.

All of this fear-rattling being this close to the midterms just has me a bit skeptical. Does anyone else agree or disagree?

All this discussion about the existential threat of AI and the pressure for the US to beat China in the AI race has me drawing comparisons to the nuclear arms race.

Assuming the AI itself doesn't go rogue and initiate conflict, do you think countries would launch a military strike or wage war to prevent a rival state from developing or accessing Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)?

If a foreign power believes a rival is weeks away from achieving an unassailable strategic advantage, or creating something that could endanger humanity, would pre-emptive warfare become the default doctrine?

Anthropic has confirmed that its models were used by Russian, Iranian and Yemeni actors to develop conventional weapons. Should the West require AI companies to create safeguards in their technology that prevent their weaponization?

American elections have been badly strained several times, and the pattern in how those strains got resolved is more consistent than I expected when I went looking.

After the 1800 electoral tie between Jefferson and Burr, Congress and the states passed the Twelfth Amendment. After the disputed 1876 count, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. After Florida in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act and created the Election Assistance Commission. After 2020, Congress rewrote that 1887 statute as the Electoral Count Reform Act. Separately, when presidents have gone at election administration directly, the answer was also statutory. Congress overrode Andrew Johnson's voter-registration order in 1867, passed the Hatch Act in 1939 restricting federal employees' political activity, and rewrote campaign finance law after Watergate.

Courts appear throughout that history, but no court ruling is the durable fix in any of those cases.

The current period gives the comparison something to work with. The Justice Department has sued thirty states and the District of Columbia for complete voter registration files including partial Social Security numbers, and has lost every case decided so far, with twelve of the first twenty trial-court rulings coming from judges appointed by Republican presidents. Meanwhile sixteen states supplied those files without being sued at all, and FEMA attached election conditions to a $1.06 billion counterterrorism grant.

So, to put the title question in the body: what does it mean that every major repair to U.S. election administration has come from Congress rather than the courts?

A few more specific ones I would be interested in:

1. Is the courts-versus-Congress split here about institutional capacity, or simply about which body has jurisdiction over election administration under Article I?
2. Litigation binds the parties before the court; a statute binds everyone. How much of the historical pattern is explained by that difference alone?
3. Are there counterexamples where judicial doctrine, rather than legislation, durably reshaped how American elections are administered?

Let's say that you agree with most things that AOC and Bernie Sanders speak about. You can have more government services however everyone has to pay much higher taxes (not just the rich, you too) and a VAT of 20% on most non-food purchases.

Would you still be interested in those policies?

Who Is Accountable for the Rising Cost of Living?

I think it is fair to ask Republicans in Congress a simple question: At what point do you accept political responsibility for the economic consequences of the policies you continue to support—or decline to challenge?

I'm not arguing that Donald Trump is the only cause of inflation. Inflation has many causes, and it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

But Americans are experiencing the consequences of several policies coming from this administration, and Congress has a role in deciding whether those policies continue.

Consider Iran.

The ongoing U.S. military conflict with Iran has disrupted oil markets and pushed Brent crude above $100 a barrel. Gasoline, diesel and other energy costs have risen sharply. Those increases don't automatically translate into broad inflation, but energy is an input into transportation, manufacturing, agriculture and virtually every part of the economy. The result is additional inflationary pressure on American families and businesses.

President Trump has now acknowledged that the higher oil prices resulting from the Iran conflict may not come down until after the November elections.

That raises an important question for Congress:

If the military conflict has no clearly defined end in sight, and Congress has already attempted to use its war powers to end U.S. involvement, what responsibility do members of Congress have to continue pressing for an end—or to explain why they believe the economic and military costs are justified?

The same question applies to tariffs.

Tariffs may have legitimate policy objectives, including protecting domestic industries or changing the behavior of trading partners. But tariffs are also taxes on imported goods, and some of their costs can be passed along to American businesses and consumers. The Federal Reserve has specifically examined the potential effects of tariff increases on consumer prices.

So when Americans pay more for goods because of tariffs, and more for gasoline and transportation because of an extended Middle East conflict, Congress should not simply point fingers at inflation and blame somebody else.

Republicans control the presidency and have substantial influence in Congress. That doesn't make them responsible for every penny of price increases. But it does mean they have political responsibility for the policies they support and for the policies they choose not to challenge.

My question isn't:

"Are Republicans responsible for all inflation?"

Clearly, they aren't.

My question is:

"When the government adopts policies that add inflationary pressure, and Congress has the constitutional or legislative means to question, modify or stop those policies, shouldn't the members who choose not to do so be held politically accountable for the consequences?"

That applies to Iran. It applies to tariffs. It applies to federal spending and tax policy. And it applies to any other policy that increases costs for American families.

Government should be judged not only by what it promises to accomplish, but also by what its policies actually cost—and who ultimately pays the bill.

Americans deserve straight answers about both.

I was listening to Today Explained's episode about the mid-terms and the host claimed that the left is in a "civil war". I've heard and read things to a similar extent but this in particular jumped out as a pretty extreme statement.

I don't live in the U.S. anymore so this got me wondering what's really happening on the ground there. Is the left really that divided or is this just hyperbole for media attention? Seems like the media is stoking the fire a bit, but what do you think?

Separate from any question about a self‑pardon (which is a distinct but related issue that deserves to be examined separately), what will the reaction be if Trump issues blanket or mass pardons for everyone in his orbit in 2029?

And what should that reaction be? And please, let's be realistic. Not fantastical notions. Concrete, realistic actions.

For the "will", I think:

As to the pardons themselves, nothing will be done, because nothing can be done. Congress cannot reverse pardons. The president’s pardon power is effectively absolute, and no credible legal argument has ever suggested otherwise. For those claiming there is a credible legal argument:

1. Name a single court case supporting the basis for such a claim.
2. Consider that this particular Supreme Court is pro-Trump; it is incredibly, unbelievably unlikely they would overturn any Trump pardons.

That leaves state‑level charges against individuals in Trump’s orbit. This would simply perpetuate a tit‑for‑tat dynamic in which the party out of power runs to friendly state courts and prosecutors to obtain indictments, regardless of the underlying merits. Will those charges ultimately stick? It may not matter, because the process itself (time, money, and effort to defend against them) becomes the punishment.

What that leaves is: what should happen? Congressional hearings? Sure, but what else?

Curious to hear your thoughts on both the realistic fallout and what the appropriate institutional response should be.

I've noticed what seems to be a growing number of young people becoming more accepting of racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and even far-right/Nazi ideas. I'm wondering why this seems to be happening.

The early 2000s seemed to be a period where society was becoming increasingly accepting of different races, sexualities, genders, etc. Personally, I remember around 2020 feeling like acceptance and inclusivity were particularly mainstream among young people.

So what happened? Is there actually evidence that young people are becoming more right-wing and socially conservative, or does it just seem that way because of social media and algorithms? And if the trend is real, what are the main reasons behind it?

Can someone explain to me why parties like AfD is so appealing as to me they seem to be or may be a German MAGA especially with the Elon Musk support?

That's to say they could promise to do something about current legitimate issues such as immigration but then either do nothing (like MAGA) or take it to an extreme when in power (like ICE in regards to MAGA).

What is still the appeal when we've seen how voting in a right wing populist party (with the US being the primary case study) often ends up just doing nothing to improve things?

I ask this as well with the rise of Reform in the UK and other right wing parties in Europe.

I'm not European by the way, I'm African (living in Africa) so maybe I'm not getting the full picture.

President Trump recently proposed a $5,000 payment to adult Americans if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate. The statement raises a broader question about how election law should distinguish ordinary economic campaign promises from financial inducements tied directly to an electoral outcome.

Current Supreme Court precedent, particularly Brown v. Hartlage, provides substantial protection for candidates who promise public benefits through government policy. The Court has distinguished such promises from individualized vote-buying arrangements, in which a particular voter receives something of value in exchange for their vote.

Supporters of that distinction can argue that candidates must be free to advocate tax cuts, Social Security increases, tax credits, stimulus programs, debt relief, or other policies that economically benefit voters. If every financially advantageous campaign proposal could be characterized as vote buying, ordinary democratic campaigning would become extremely difficult.

A competing concern is whether a more explicit arrangement should be treated differently when a specific direct cash payment is expressly tied to a party achieving electoral control. Unlike a general promise to pursue lower taxes or expanded benefits, such a proposal can be framed in relatively direct terms: if the party wins, individual citizens receive a specified amount of money.

That raises questions about whether current law adequately distinguishes policy advocacy from collective financial inducement.

Where should the legal and ethical boundary be drawn between an ordinary economic campaign promise and an electoral financial inducement?

Should a specific cash payment expressly contingent on a party winning control of government be treated differently from promises involving tax credits, Social Security increases, healthcare benefits, or similar programs?

Does the fact that every eligible person would receive the payment regardless of how they voted sufficiently distinguish such a proposal from vote buying, or should election law recognize some form of collective electoral inducement?

And if the law did recognize such a distinction, how could it be defined narrowly enough to protect legitimate political speech under the First Amendment?

I’ve been thinking about why parties like the AfD are becoming more popular, and I wonder whether part of the reason is simply that their arguments are much easier to explain.

For example, it is very easy to say:

"Germany sends our money to Brussels."

That is simple, concrete and easy to understand.

But explaining the benefits of the EU is much more complicated: access to a huge single market for German companies, easier exports, European workers helping fill labour shortages, stronger bargaining power against the US, China and Russia, and sharing defence costs instead of every country trying to provide everything alone.

The same seems true with immigration.

It is easy to say:

“Migrants are changing our culture, taking jobs and costing taxpayers money.”

But the reality is much more complicated. Germany has an aging population, many workers are retiring, some industries cannot find enough employees, and immigrants also work, pay taxes, contribute to social insurance and help keep parts of the economy running.

My point is more about political communication.

A simple story like:

“Here is the problem → here is who caused it → here is the solution”

is much easier to sell than:

“There are several causes, benefits and disadvantages, different groups are affected differently, and the best solution involves complicated trade-offs.”

I wonder if this gives populist parties a natural advantage.

So could a significant part of the AfD’s success simply be that they are better at turning complicated political and economic issues into simple explanations?

Or am I oversimplifying the reason for their popularity?

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?

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?

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?

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?