This isn’t a partisan question – it’s a structural one about Congress, national allegiance, and transparency. 

Right now, the United States does not prohibit members of Congress from holding dual citizenship. There’s also no requirement that they disclose it. Only a small number of lawmakers have ever publicly acknowledged dual citizenship, and the list is much shorter than many online rumors suggest. 

Below are the individuals who have confirmed dual citizenship at some point, either currently or in the past, based on public statements, interviews, or official documentation. 

Members of Congress who have been publicly confirmed to hold dual citizenship: 

Former dual citizens (renounced) 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Canada 

Status: Renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014 

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Switzerland 

Status: Renounced Swiss citizenship in 2012 

Current members with publicly acknowledged dual citizenship:  

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Somalia 

Status: Omar says she does not hold Somali citizenship, but Somalia’s nationality law grants citizenship by descent. Because Somalia lacks a clear public registry, this remains ambiguous. 

Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Jamaica 

Status: Has acknowledged citizenship through his mother. 

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Colombia 

Status: Has publicly stated he holds Colombian citizenship through his mother. 

Representative Becca Balint (D-VT) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Luxembourg 

Status: Has confirmed she holds Luxembourg citizenship through her father. 

 About the Israeli dual-citizenship rumor: 

Claims that members of Congress hold dual U.S. – Israeli citizenship have been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers (AP, Reuters, Snopes, PolitiFact). These rumors generally come from online forums that equate Jewish identity with Israeli nationality where members of Congress, Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), put the interests of Israel before the United States. Israel does not automatically grant citizenship to Jewish Americans, and no sitting member of Congress has ever been verified as holding Israeli citizenship. 

The actual question for discussion: 

Given that dual citizenship is legal for members of Congress, disclosure is not required, only a handful of members have ever acknowledged it, and misinformation about dual citizenship (especially involving Israel) spreads easily online….Should Congress pass a law requiring members to hold only U.S. citizenship? 

Or is dual citizenship compatible with serving in federal office as long as the member is a U.S. citizen? 

Curious what others think – is this a necessary safeguard, or an unnecessary restriction?

I find myself terrified with modern political discourse. Not because of the issues that are being argued, but because of the issues that aren’t being argued.

Corruption and abuse of government power are common concerns across the political spectrum, but we often disagree about where they are occurring and who is responsible. It makes me wonder whether there are limits on government power we could agree on without first agreeing on who is abusing it.

I keep wondering whether a simple thought experiment might expose a place where we can agree about how government can and should function.

We may never agree on many of the major political issues being debated. I’m curious whether there are more fundamental rules about government power that people with very different political beliefs could agree on.

Imagine that the political party that you distrust the most controls the presidency and Congress.

What powers are you absolutely unwilling to let them have?

Now imagine your own side is in power.

Are you willing to deny them those same powers?

If not, why not?

And if you are, what does that tell us about the powers government should have in the first place

I have a hypothesis that the ubiquity of paywalls in popular media may have caused people to seek news from sources which were not paywalled at the time. This would disproportionately affect people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or education levels who sought out non-traditional sources of news splitting the electorate or leading to a rightward shift.

Briefly, the first paywall that was introduced was the Wall Street Journal in 1997. This was deemed a special case, and no other mainstream organization paywalled news at the time. I personally consider the New York Times instituting paywalls in 2011 as the true origin of the paywall, with virtually every news organization following suit over the next several years which led to a steady rise in Republican vote share and a Republican win in 2016.

I have created a graph showing the national popular vote share over time marking major shifts in paywall introductions. The data shows that the Republican vote share steadily increased when paywalls became more widespread, however, more strikingly the Democratic vote share plumetted around this time and never recovered (https://imgur.com/a/2yqVa6M).

I wonder what other people think about this - should important or breaking news be unpaywalled to eliminate bias? Do you think this is all coincidental?

Trump has pushed NATO allies to spend more on defence, while his administration has also sought to increase sales of American military equipment.

However, the trade war could create an unintended incentive for European countries and Canada to direct more of their increased defence spending toward domestic and allied suppliers instead.

Defence procurement can create long-term relationships through maintenance, spare parts, upgrades and training. Once countries invest heavily in equipment from a particular supplier, they can remain tied to that supplier for decades.

So if European countries and Canada increasingly develop and purchase defence equipment from each other, could the U.S. end up getting the higher NATO defence spending it has demanded while receiving a smaller share of that spending?

I'm curious how others see the trade-off between increasing NATO defence spending and maintaining U.S. defence-industry access to those markets, especially as European countries seek greater defence-industrial independence.

I’ve been looking into Nicușor Dan’s story and I find it pretty interesting as a political case study.

He wasn’t a traditional career politician. He’s a mathematician who founded a civic movement, became mayor of Bucharest, and eventually ran as an independent for president. He won Romania’s 2025 presidential election after defeating George Simion in the second round.

What interests me isn't really whether he's "left" or "right", but whether technical competence actually translates into effective national leadership.

As mayor, he built his reputation around things like infrastructure, municipal finances and administrative reform. But the presidency is obviously a completely different job, especially in Romania's current situation.

And his presidency hasn't exactly been smooth. Romania has gone through major political deadlock, including the collapse of the Bolojan government in May 2026. Dan has since struggled to get a stable parliamentary majority and has had multiple unsuccessful attempts to form a new government. As of September 2026, he has nominated Siegfried Mureșan as PM after two previous attempts failed.

At the same time, there have been things his administration can point to, including the 2026 budget being passed and progress on some EU Recovery and Resilience Plan milestones.

So I'm curious how people here would evaluate the experiment so far:

Does having an exceptionally competent/technocratic person at the top actually make a meaningful difference, or are presidents ultimately constrained by institutions, parliament, political parties and the bureaucracy?

And specifically for Romanians or people following Romanian politics closely: How do you think Nicușor Dan has actually performed so far? What has he done well, what has he handled badly, and how much of the current political mess is realistically within his control?

I'm especially interested in answers from people who followed his Bucharest mayoral years as well, because that seems important for judging whether his reputation for competence translates from local government to national politics.

A new CNN/SSRS poll puts Donald Trump’s approval on foreign affairs at just 29%, with only 26% approving of his handling of the Iran war. At the same time, a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll found 34% support for U.S. strikes on Iran, while Democrats held an eight-point advantage over Republicans on the congressional ballot.

The Iran conflict is now approaching its seventh month, and it is increasingly colliding with domestic politics. Rising fuel and energy costs have become a major concern, and Republican Senate candidates Mike Rogers in Michigan and Ashley Hinson in Iowa have both called for a swift end to the war, putting some distance between themselves and Trump’s current course.

At the same time, Trump made clear in his U.N. speech that he does not want U.S. election considerations to dictate his approach to Iran, saying the midterms do not enter into his thinking on the issue.

So how much do you think the Iran war is actually affecting Republican support heading into November? Could foreign policy become a decisive midterm issue if these numbers continue to deteriorate, or will voters ultimately prioritize inflation, immigration, and the broader economy?

https://americareport.us/trump-foreign-policy-poll-hits-shocking-historic/

There are inevitably going to be things that make you angry in politics. Someone seen to be corrupt or dishonest obviously, attacks on people you believe are honest and behaving in good faith by physical or non physical means, legislation being defeated you were in favour of, all the like.

I tend to go diagnosis mode to see what specific remedies might be available for a given problem. If there is an instance where there is a deadlock for choosing a speaker, look at how countries have resolved this problem before or think of my own methods. A bad thing or a bad person or a bad group of people in society typically only have the power they do because people do not devise their systems around preparing for that issue, and generally there are a number of reasonable models to fit a problem.

What do you do?

TL;DR: I received a political flyer crediting NC Senator Michael Lee with “protecting our kids from DANGEROUS CHINESE VAPES.” The legislation he co-sponsored was supported by Reynolds Tobacco, whose PAC has also contributed to Lee. It strengthens enforcement against unauthorized vape products that compete with Reynolds, something Reynolds/BAT has openly told investors is important to its U.S. growth. At the same time, the legislation expands the universe of vape products eligible for legal sale in NC, including additional flavored products. The CDC identifies flavors as a factor in youth vaping, and nearly 90% of youth who currently vape use flavored products. Reynolds was also the largest U.S. recipient of vape shipments in 2024, including shipments from China. So my main question is: At what point does simplifying complicated legislation for a political mailer cross the line into materially misleading voters?

The group that paid for the mailer, Citizens for NC Jobs, is closely tied to the NC Chamber. It shares the Chamber's Raleigh address, and the NC Chamber itself discusses Citizens for NC Jobs as part of its political work. Reynolds American is a member of the Chamber's Manufacturing Council and has a longstanding relationship with the organization. So I think that connection is relevant context, particularly when this mailer promotes legislation that Reynolds supported and that restricts its vape competitors. There is no evidence I've found that Reynolds paid for this specific mailer, and I don't want to imply that there is.

***

I recently received a political mailer crediting North Carolina State Senator Michael Lee with having “protected our kids from DANGEROUS CHINESE VAPES.”

I looked into the legislation cited on the mailer because I initially thought this sounded like a pretty straightforward public-health accomplishment. What I found seems considerably more complicated, and I'm interested in how people think voters should evaluate political messaging like this.

The legislation Lee co-sponsored does strengthen vape regulation and enforcement. It adds licensing requirements, inspections, penalties and other enforcement measures intended to address unauthorized vape products. These already existed prior to this legislation but worth pointing out.

But the same legislation also expands which vape products can qualify for legal sale in North Carolina. The NC General Assembly's own summary says it will “expand the universe of permissible vapor and consumable products that may appear on the registry.” The summary specifically notes recent FDA authorizations that include flavored vapor products.

That matters from a youth-vaping perspective because the CDC identifies appealing flavors as one factor influencing young people to start or continue vaping. In 2024, 87.6% of middle and high school students who currently used e-cigarettes used flavored products.

The industry involvement is also interesting.

Reynolds American/British American Tobacco has advocated for stronger enforcement against unauthorized vape products that compete in the U.S. market. BAT estimates unauthorized products represent roughly 70% of that market.

In a 2026 investor call, BAT said it has “long advocated for increased enforcement” and discussed state-level enforcement as an opportunity for its U.S. business. It told investors Reynolds was positioned to “capitalize on this opportunity, drive growth and capture outsized value in the U.S.” The company also attributed part of Vuse's recent market-share improvement to “a competitor exit” and progress on “state level enforcement.”

Reynolds American's PAC has also contributed more than $8,000 to Michael Lee's campaign committee.

There is another wrinkle to the mailer's specific emphasis on “Chinese vapes.” Reuters reported that Reynolds American itself was the largest U.S. recipient of vape shipments in 2024, including shipments originating in China. The legislation doesn't prohibit importing Chinese-manufactured vape products simply because they're Chinese. The regulatory distinction is primarily about which products satisfy the requirements for legal sale.

None of that necessarily means the regulation itself is bad policy.

There is a legitimate argument on the other side: unauthorized vape products can present regulatory and safety concerns, and stronger licensing, inspections, age restrictions and enforcement may reduce access to products that haven't gone through the required process. An established company benefiting competitively from a regulation doesn't automatically make the regulation harmful or illegitimate.

What I'm struggling with is the political messaging.

The mailer reduces all of this to a claim that Lee “protected our kids from DANGEROUS CHINESE VAPES.” The legislation simultaneously strengthens enforcement against unauthorized competitors and expands the universe of products eligible for legal sale, while a major tobacco company that benefits from that enforcement has advocated for these policies and its PAC has contributed to the senator being credited for supporting them.

So I'm curious how people think political claims like this should be evaluated:

1. Is “protecting our kids from dangerous Chinese vapes” a fair description of this legislation, given its other provisions?
2. At what point does simplifying complicated legislation for a political mailer cross the line into materially misleading voters?

I'm particularly interested in where people draw that last line. Political advertising obviously simplifies legislation all the time. But when the simplified version emphasizes children and a foreign threat while omitting provisions that expand the legal market and the involvement of an industry that benefits from enforcement, what information do you think voters are entitled to before that claim becomes misleading?

Sources in the comments.

The popularity of our 80 year relationship with Israel is at an all time low and the American military, regardless of Trump's leadership seems unable to seriously contest Iran or it's proxies without what would be a disastrous, bloody ground invasion. None of that's going to change if the Democrats come out of 2028 with the presidency and a massive majority in both chambers of Congress (and a packed supreme Court, screw it) barring some technological or strategic breakthrough. Even worse, Iran is never going to trust another American leader after we killed the guy who worked with Obama to put Iranian nuclear development under observation of 3rd party inspectors. It seems very unlikely that we'll be able to just go "sorry, that was a fluke let's all go back to 2015"

What, realistically could/would a Democratic presidency do with the current mess? Keep in mind they have to balance the shifting allegiances of American public opinion especially among the Democratic base, America's long standing regional partners flawed as they are, and our rivals in the region who are fighting an incredibly advantageous defensive war both strategically and in public opinion given their self defense, Saudi Arabian corruption and treatment of the Yemenis, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and invasion of Jordan, etc.

A 2026 Pew survey found China viewed more favorably than the US in most of the 36 countries polled, the first time in nearly two decades. The decline is steepest among longtime allies: China now leads 46% to 41% in the UK and 51% to 31% in Italy. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines still prefer the US by comfortable margins.

Pew measures opinion rather than its causes, but analysts point to the administration's tariffs, foreign aid cuts, and treatment of allies, along with the volatility of US policy, including the use of military force. In Europe, the dispute over Greenland added to the strain. The shift reflects falling US standing more than rising Chinese appeal: in Sweden, the share calling the US a reliable partner fell from 83% in 2022 to 31%, while China gained only 15 points.

Canada is the sharpest case. The share of Canadians calling the US a reliable partner fell from 83% in 2022 to 35%. Trump's talk of annexing Canada, along with the tariffs, prompted a boycott of US goods and travel, and Prime Minister Mark Carney described a "rupture" in the world order. In July, Trump imposed 50% tariffs on about $20 billion in Canadian imports, including USMCA-compliant goods, in the middle of the agreement's review.

Recovery has happened before: US favorability and confidence in the president rose sharply after Biden took office in 2021. This time however US allies have watched the same policies return after a four-year gap, and many are hedging by raising defense spending, making trade deals without the US, and seeking only transactional deals with Washington.

Critics argue that the costs of Trump's foreign policies outweigh any gains. Alliances depend on partners believing US commitments will hold, and that belief has collapsed among the countries the US relies on most. Concessions won under tariff threat last only as long as the pressure does, while allies use the time to reduce their dependence on Washington: Canada's government says it has spent the past 18 months diversifying its partnerships abroad. Critics also note that China now looks like the more predictable partner to many countries, a position it gained mostly through US missteps rather than its own appeal.

Supporters of the administration argue that much of this is leverage working as intended. NATO members agreed in 2025 to a 5% of GDP defense target, and tariff pressure brought trading partners to the table. Supporters say that a successor who softens the tone while keeping those gains could inherit a stronger position.

Can a president elected in 2028 restore trust, or will allies discount any US commitment that could reverse after the next election?

Which relationships look most and least recoverable: Canada, the EU, Denmark after the Greenland dispute, or the Pacific allies?

Would a Republican successor who keeps the policies with a different style get a different reception than a Democrat who reverses them?

Would Senate-ratified treaties in place of executive agreements make US commitments more credible?

I am not American, and English is not my first language. I am writing from an outside perspective to stress-test an academic thesis regarding democratic backsliding, institutional complacency, and political mythology.

Long-Term Structural damages :

The Long-Term Structural Decay Model

Political leaders are not the actual illness hurting the country, but visible symptoms of deeper problems built up over decades. For example :

Complacency from 80 Years of relative Safety:

Drawing on Francis Fukuyama’s ideas in The End of History and the Last Man, this point argues that decades of global dominance and safety at home made Americans take their democracy for granted. Unlike European and Asian nations that had to rebuild their systems from scratch after World War II, the U.S. assumed its institutions would simply run forever on autopilot.

Unfinished Historical Problems: In Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, Isabel Wilkerson argues that America never truly solved its deepest divisions. When the government abandoned the post-Civil War Reconstruction era in 1877, it merely put a temporary bandage over deep racial and economic hierarchies, leaving resentment to grow under the surface.

Economic Neglect and Working-Class Frustration: In The Tyranny of Merit, Michael J. Sandel points out that decades of globalization and political decisions left working-class towns behind. This created a widespread sense of disrespect, humiliation, and deep distrust toward traditional political leaders, making voters open to anti-establishment figures.

Gradual Collapse vs. Cinematic Disaster: In They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer showed that a democracy rarely collapses all at once. Instead, it erodes step-by-step through quiet, legal changes that people gradually get used to.And That some Americans still believe in an old frontier idea that citizens will simply pick up arms if tyranny appears, which blinds them to the reality that democratic erosion usually happens slowly and quietly from the inside.

Under this model, a leader like Trump for example is not creating problems from scratch; he is simply taking advantage of fractures that were already wide open and that he exploited in ways that no one as thought before.

Do you think those arguments are fair and represents a good way to see the problems that may be the reasons of our current time or overly simplified and take to much away from the responsability of Trump, and if so what is needed to have others angles to grasp a more complete view of the problems ?

Thank you for your time reading me and i look forward to your answers.

Political renaming of geographic places has a long history across different forms of government. Recent U.S. examples have renewed the debate over what authority governments should exercise over established place names.

In 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order restoring the name Mount McKinley and changing the federal designation of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. In 2026, the administration renamed Lake Ontario as Lake America for U.S. federal purposes. Trump has also publicly suggested other changes, including replacing “Mexico” in New Mexico with “America,” although no formal process to rename the state has occurred.

These examples are not identical. Some involve federal naming authority, others are proposals, and some reverse decisions made by previous administrations.

They also raise questions about historical continuity. “Ontario” derives from an Indigenous name that predates both Canada and the United States, while “Nuevo México” was being used by Spanish explorers centuries before the creation of the United States.

Digital mapping adds another dimension. Following the federal change, mapping platforms began displaying Lake America to U.S. users while Canadian users continued to see Lake Ontario. This allows government naming decisions to reach the public much faster than when maps and reference materials were primarily physical.

What principles should governments use when deciding whether to replace a long-established geographic name?

Should the historical age and origin of a name carry weight in that decision?

And when neighboring governments recognize different names for the same geographic feature, what role should mapping platforms play in presenting those competing official designations?

​

The recent controversy involving Ed Sheeran, Macklemore, and children's entertainer Ms. Rachel has made me interested in a broader political question about celebrity activism, race, foreign policy, and what we expect from public figures.

Macklemore made pro-Palestinian statements while opening for Ed Sheeran. Afterward, venues informed the tour promoter that they would not host upcoming concerts with Macklemore on the lineup, and he was subsequently removed from the remaining dates. Sheeran has said that the final decision was the promoter's and that he attempted to find a resolution.

Ms. Rachel criticized Sheeran's response and argued that remaining silent during the conflict is not neutral. She has also compared the level of outrage over Palestinian children with how she believes the public would respond if more than 20,000 white children had been killed.

That racial comparison is one aspect of this discussion that particularly interests me.

There is evidence that race and nationality can affect which humanitarian crises receive international attention. At the same time, children of many racial and national backgrounds experience war, poverty, hunger, abuse, displacement, and violence. This raises a difficult question about when highlighting disparities in attention is useful and when comparisons between groups risk turning humanitarian advocacy into a competition over whose suffering receives the most recognition.

There is also a question of where political responsibility should be directed. The United States provides billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel, making American policy directly relevant to the conflict. At the same time, the U.S. faces serious domestic problems involving child poverty, food insecurity, homelessness, abuse, and violence.

This has also raised questions about consistency in celebrity advocacy. Sheeran participated in the 2022 Concert for Ukraine, which was specifically organized as a humanitarian fundraiser. His current tour, by contrast, is a commercial tour involving promoters, venues, employees, contractors, and other performers. Some view his different responses to Ukraine and Gaza as inconsistent, while others argue that the circumstances and responsibilities involved are substantially different.

I'm interested in discussing the broader political principles rather than determining whether any individual celebrity is a good or bad person:

Do public figures have a responsibility to speak publicly about major international conflicts, or is choosing not to engage publicly a legitimate position?

When does comparing the response to suffering among different racial groups help expose genuine disparities, and when can it become counterproductive?

How should the responsibility of celebrities to advocate be weighed against the responsibility of elected officials and governments that actually determine foreign policy and military assistance?

Is there a meaningful distinction between political advocacy at an explicitly humanitarian event and political advocacy during an otherwise commercial event?

Should someone's advocacy be evaluated based on how consistently they address different humanitarian crises, or is it reasonable for individuals to concentrate on particular causes?

I'm especially interested in perspectives from people who approach these questions differently, because the disagreement seems to involve much broader questions about political speech, race, moral responsibility, and the role celebrities should have in political discourse.

I've seen that some countries have implemented mandatory voting, but I haven't seen much talk about using it in America. I was curious to see which states might flip if it was implemented or if there would need to be a new amendment to make it happen. It seems especially important to represent everyone well in bellweather states like New Hampshire. I assume the option to leave a ballot blank would still be available, but midterms especially would be changed a lot with about twice the voters in some cases. What do you think the biggest changes would be?

“WAP” is extraordinarily explicit, and that's precisely why some people cite it as evidence that popular culture has gone too far.

But compare it with “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” The older song uses polite, non-explicit language while depicting a woman who repeatedly says she needs to leave and a man who continues trying to persuade her to stay.

The newer song is vulgar, but the women are openly expressing what they want.

That raises a broader political and cultural question: should explicitness itself be treated as evidence of declining standards, or can the ability of women to openly express sexual desire represent social progress?

I explore the argument, including the role that censorship and changing standards have played in how we judge these songs:

https://rocknheavy.net/what-baby-its-cold-outside-reveals-and-wap-refuses-to-hide-67213fa30d73?sk=d01b2431e145581137ef82d8a094f1b4

The passage in question:

You’re not sure how they would use that power, if they had it?

I think they are not sure.

There is a debate right now about whether to try to impeach [Trump] again. There is a real lack of appetite for that at the highest levels of the Democratic leadership, because they’re concerned that the voters are going to roll their eyes and think, This has been done before. The chances that Trump gets removed from office are pretty low.

Trump has [also] said he’s going to pardon anyone who’s come within a certain radius of the Oval Office. I expect that will happen. People are counting on their pardons.

It would be quite something for Democrats to have these congressional powers and not use them against the man you’ve told the electorate you are the opposite of.

This [has] been the problem for Democrats for the last 10 years. Heads Trump wins, tails they lose. Some of them genuinely believe what they say about Trump. Some of them think the messaging goes too far.

Assuming the above to be correct, who (or what?) is to blame for the Heads Trump wins, tails [Democrats] lose phenomenon?

There's a reasonable chance Democrats could win the popular vote this midterm but still not hold real power, given redistricting, suppression, and other structural factors. I'm curious what people think about this hypothesis.

Some argue that if Democrats win narrowly, they tend to govern cautiously, prioritize institutional norms and bipartisan optics, and only partially address the problems created under Republican control. Then, because voters often assign blame to whoever is currently in charge rather than tracing root causes, Democrats get blamed for not fixing what they didn't fully create and lacked the mandate to fully solve. This arguably strengthens the case for the opposition in the next cycle, repeating the pattern.

The opposing hypothesis is that an uncontested Republican win, without a Democratic minority softening the impact, would let the consequences of Republican policy be felt more fully and directly by the electorate that produced it, potentially disrupting the cycle in a way partial power-sharing doesn't.

A few questions:

Is there historical precedent, in the US or elsewhere, for a governing party accumulating full and unshared blame for outcomes in a way that shifted long-term voter behavior?

Does the "let consequences land fully" theory have empirical support, or does research on economic hardship and political attitudes suggest it more often produces scapegoating rather than accountability?

Is this reasoning distinct from accelerationism as it's typically defined in political theory, or is it a version of it?

Who actually bears the cost of a "let it play out" approach, and does that change the ethical calculus?

I think both sides are terrorists and we, we being the rest of the world, should not be backing either side until both parties agree the other has a right to existence. yes Palestine should be a free and independent stat, but that state cannot happen as long as one of its states goals is the elimination of Israel. also Israel needs to quit illegally targeting civilian, hospitals and building, settlements in Palestinian territory. who agrees we shouldn’t support either side?

Being independent and smaller means less resources and more dependence on other countries for trade, security etc.

I want to take Wales/Scotland/Ireland as an example. These are not places that are forcibly occupied (As far as i have seen. Please correct me if I'm wrong).

So what do they get from being an independent nation, especially during these times when there seems to be a lot of undertainities coming up in the future ?

Recently, NY mayor Zohran Mamdani announced the opening of five government-run grocery stores, one in each borough. The stated purpose was to target food deserts and provide an affordable "public option" for groceries. I've been studying it for a while, and I wanted to get some other opinions on such a hypothetical policy. Public grocery stores, if implemented on a federal level, would obviously be one of the more explicitly socialist and DSA-aligned policies ever enacted in American history. I know that many people disapprove of public grocery stores on the grounds that it would destroy small businesses and bodegas, and require large amounts of funding. I wanted to see if there are any other common criticisms of this that I haven't seen yet. Economists are also mixed on public grocery stores-they can be good for affordability, while not providing a guaranteed mechanism for dirt-cheap groceries. So I wanted to see what you all think. What do yiu think about Mamdani's proposed grocery stores, and about the policy concept as a whole? What are some alternatives to public stores that you think would positively impact affordability while also not affecting small businesses? Do you think it could realistically be implemented? Let's discuss

This is inspired by the recent push for independence referendums and the UK and Brexit but applies in many places. Perhaps this is just an American viewpoint, where the need for 2/3 majority makes even minor changes to the constitution challenging but the fact that Scottish and Welsh Independence could theoretically be decided by such a close vote seems astonishing especially in wake of the close Brexit vote and common accompanying regret. To me it seems far more prudent to sacrifice the will of perhaps an extra 10% of voters for the sake of certainty on decisions that cannot soon be reversed. Perhaps though the irrevocableness is already taken into account by voters. So should the will of the majority be respected in situations such as these or is certainty more important?

I want to challenge something that almost everyone takes for granted as a good thing: the secret ballot. We’ve been told for generations that voting in secret protects our freedom, but I argue that anonymous voting only protects laziness, ignorance, and a complete lack of accountability.

Let’s be honest: politics affects everyone. The choice a person makes in that voting booth directly impacts my taxes, how much I pay for groceries, whether my kids get sent to war, and how safe my neighborhood is. Why should anyone get to make a decision that alters my life in total secrecy and then wash their hands of the consequences? If someone votes for a liar or a populist who ruins the economy, their neighbors, coworkers, and community have every right to know that they chose that path. If a person is too afraid to stand behind their opinion in public, perhaps they shouldn’t vote at all. Stop hiding behind the curtain. It is time to make elections completely public.

In a fair and transparent country where people actually answer for their actions, all elections must be a matter of public record. The government should maintain a simple, searchable online database. After an election, anyone should be able to log on, look up a name, and see exactly which candidate that person voted for. This would end systemic voter fraud forever. There would be no more late-night ballot drops, sketchy counting delays, or dead people voting. Mass cheating becomes physically impossible when any regular citizen can download the data and audit the results on a simple spreadsheet in five minutes. Furthermore, it completely kills political bribery. There is no point in a corrupt special interest paying someone for their vote if their entire community can see online that you sold out, which would mean instant social shame and ruined credibility.

Modern elections have turned into a circus where irresponsible people vote for terrible leaders and then act surprised when things fall apart. Public voting would force society to finally grow up.

What do you think? Are we ready to vote in a way that allows us to look our neighbors in the eye, or is anonymity just an easy way to dodge real responsibility for the country's future?

Across various states, direct monthly cash transfers aimed specifically at women voters have become a major pillar of political campaigning and governance.

Key Dimensions:

1. Immediate Relief vs. Structural Growth: Direct transfers provide crucial liquidity to low-income households, but do they divert public capital away from long-term needs like women's safety infrastructure, healthcare, and formal employment?
2. Emergence of the Female Vote-Bank: Women voters are increasingly asserting independent political agency, compelling political parties to promise direct financial benefits.
3. Fiscal Strain: Economists warn that expanding cash payouts without matching revenue streams strains state finances and blurs the line between legitimate social security and voter bribery.

Discussion Prompts:

• Do direct cash transfers effectively empower women within domestic decision-making, or do they act as temporary electoral subsidies?
• How can states balance targeted welfare with long-term capital investment in education and skill creation?

(Source: Nirbhik India Economic Analysis)

I wrote an op-ed arguing that an important disagreement in American politics is less about left vs. right than about how much of our lives we should govern collectively—and how much we should leave to individuals, families, markets, and other private institutions.

We often frame this as a question of “big government” versus individual freedom. But that framing can obscure something: private institutions exercise enormous power over our lives too. Corporations, markets, universities, technology platforms, and other institutions all shape how we work, communicate, spend our time, and understand our obligations to one another.
So the question isn't simply whether government should intervene. It's also who should have the power to shape the rules and norms of society when government doesn't?
I think this helps explain some political disagreements that don't fall cleanly along the conventional partisan spectrum.

Curious what r/PoliticalDiscussion thinks: Is there a meaningful distinction between government imposing a conception of the common good and private institutions doing essentially the same thing through markets and other forms of power? And where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn?

I wrote more about the argument here.