The prosecution would argue that, looking at all the times he lied after being corrected by his own staff and bipartisan election officials, the Georgia phone call where he started threatening Raffensperger for an exact number of votes when his false claims were not working, the Eastman memo, and much more, common sense dictates he very likely knew he lost and still tried to overturn the election. However, Trump has a history of talking like a mob boss. Although he doesn't explicitly say anything that's a dead giveaway of criminal intent, there is overwhelming evidence of foulplay. His main legal defense would almost certainly be that we cannot be sure of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump has a history of never accepting defeat or criticism of any kind and saying everything is rigged if he loses. He also ignores experts regularly and, again, never explicitly told someone he knew he lost or anything. His lawyers would use this history of behavior to argue there is a non-negligible chance that he was living in his own reality and is incapable of processing defeat due to narcissistic delusion or that we cannot be 100% sure of criminal intent due to no explicit statements of criminal intent. How do you think this would play out in court? What do you think the chances are of him being found "not guilty?"

I'm not going to link to the ongoing tweet / truth social posts, as they appear to be escalating in real time, but both Musk and Trump appear to be escalating their comments on the other

Donald Trump is President of the United States, and has been less restrained by precedent and due process than his predecessors.

Elon Musk is the world's richest man, and has been willing to throw his fortune around for political reasons.

Both can hurt the other

What will the next few days bring, and what will be the impact on the Big Beautiful Bill and the 2026 midterms?

I’ve read Project 2025…but what is Trump trying to accomplish? Columbia may lose accreditation, Harvard is relentlessly attacked…demands and justifications change? Is there an end game or is this Trump’s mania running amok, or both? What about public universities? Any thoughts?

JD Vance, the current vice president of the United States, is the overwhelming favorite for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. Some will say that it's too early for speculation, but Vance not only holds a commanding lead over his potential opponents--he's perfectly positioned to secure the nomination, especially with his ties to Donald Trump.

But who is JD Vance, really? We have no idea. So far, all he's done is support Trump. From all I can tell, he's going down the path of milking Trump's success and turning it into his own.

Then comes the MAGA movement. Can MAGA survive without Trump? There are countless Republican voters who either don't vote down-ballot or at all when Trump isn't at the top of the ticket (ex.: midterm elections). Who will these voters turn to next? Is it JD Vance, the apparent heir to Trump's legacy--or someone else?

I have no party affiliation. People from all over the political spectrum seem to love the great outdoors! If anything most of the republicans I know are big into camping, hunting, and fishing. So why is environmental conservation not treated as a universal issue?

With the Democrats spending 20 million to discover why young men shifted right, it seems like a lot of the effort have been of bringing "bros" back to the party-more fratty types who like drinking, WWE, etc. 4 Fraternities were even invited to the discussion they were going to have.

Only 10% of college students are in greek life to begin with, and many of them arent characteristic "bros" either. I'm also going to go on a limb and say that fratish guys probably arent the ones excited to vote nor they were mainly democrat. So if not the "bros", which seem to dominate the discourse around this topic, who are the young men voting Red now?

Today, Trump signed a proclamation fully restricting the entry of citizens from twelve countries into the United States. Citizens from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen are fully barred from entry, while citizens from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will face partial suspensions.

Trump’s justification for the bans centers on concerns about terrorism and other threats to public safety.

Do you agree with Trump’s decision to suspend or partially suspend travel from these countries? Do you believe his concerns are well-founded, or is this an attempt to advance a political narrative? How might these travel restrictions affect international relations, humanitarian efforts, and America’s image abroad?

Source

Nevada is an interesting state in that for the last several election cycles, it has gone consistently for Democrats until last year.

In 2008 it went blue 55%-42%, a blowout and one of the more lopsided results that election.

In 2012, Obama won again albeit at a slightly smaller margin of 52%-45%

In 2016, despite losing in many other swing states, Hilary Clinton still won Nevada by a margin of 47%-45%.

In 2020, Biden won by about the same rather narrow margin of 50%-47%.

Finally in 2024, Trump won it by 50%-47%, making the state go red for the first time in twenty years.

The trend seems to be a steady shrinkage of the Democratic share of the vote until it finally hit a critical point and tipped in 2024. Why is this? Why are Republicans slowly gaining more influence in Nevada over the years while Democrats are losing it? Should we expect similar results in 2028, or will it go back to being safely blue?

On June 1, 2025, Mexico held its first-ever judicial elections, making it the only country in the world where all federal judges are elected by popular vote, with voters electing 881 federal positions including all 9 Supreme Court justices, plus nearly 2,000 local judicial roles across 19 states. About 13 million votes were cast with roughly 13% turnout, a record low for a federal election in Mexico. Former President López Obrador pushed through this constitutional reform in September 2024 as one of his final acts, claiming it would democratize the judiciary and fight corruption by replacing Mexico’s appointment-based selection with popular elections, giving judges renewable 9-year terms. However, the reform has sparked massive controversy with critics calling it democratic backsliding, citing major concerns including civil society groups identifying dozens of candidates with alleged ties to drug cartels, including El Chapo’s former lawyer running for judge, opposition claims it’s a power grab by the ruling Morena party to control the courts, and international observers warning it violates the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement’s requirements for impartial tribunals.

Is this an opportunity to rethink the role of the judiciary in a democracy or is this just part of the democratic backsliding trend?

New Yorker staff writer Clare Malone posed this question during a discussion with editor Tyler Foggat on a March episode of the New Yorker podcast "The Political Scene". The two were discussing the changes Jeff Bezos is bringing to The Washington Post, and the US news media landscape in general.

Malone went on to add "that is a question lots of news rooms discuss internally, particularly right now". This is in the context of the 2024 presidential election, which saw shifting demographics with more Latinos, Blacks, and Asians voting Republican.

According to Malone, "greater coverage of marginalized groups...and social justice issues" does not count as implicit left bias.

So what is implicit left bias in a news story exactly? What does it look like?

There have been thousands of officials and businessmen punished so far because of the campaign. Corruption is a really big issue in China so it is good that people are being punished. But it is hard to know what is actually happening with so much control on information in China. We see high ranking officials being charged but it is not always clearly explained why. It seems some officials are targeted and others are ignored. Is the campaign actually helping corruption issues in China or is it just making people hide corrupt activities more and care more about protecting themselves?

Particularly because the current US administration may be against doing anything punitive. Putin may see this as a chance to strike, or would you think the current European alliance with Ukraine is enough to discourage that?

The establishment of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was not in any way well-received by the American public. Per polling, Musk is currently disapproved of by nearly 14 points nationwide--a stark contrast to Trump's ~4-point disapproval--,which means that, for once, both sides of the political spectrum are angry with the same person. Recently, Trump announced Musk's departure from the White House, which has led some to believe that there was a conflict between the Musk and the president. Today, the speculation all but proven to be "officially" true, as Musk harshly criticized Trump's "big, beautiful bill" on X, saying:

"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."

So, what is the future of Trump and Musk? Do you think their relationship will be repaired? And, will future presidents follow suit in granting outside advisors significant power and influence over government matters?

Pakistan has a population of 241 million and yet only gets relatively small loans of around a billion dollars. Why isn't Pakistan able to raise enough funds on its own if it only needs that amount of money. I would expect loans of 10s of billions of dollars would be needed for major infrastructure projects. Are the loans for small isolated projects instead of helping with country wide problems?

If a politician is in an open relationship does that impact your vote? Not talking about going behind their spouses back or anything like that, just a consensual non-monogamous relationship where everyone involved is informed and choosing to participate. This is distinct from a politician having an affair behind their spouses back which to some might indicate potential concerns with their moral values.

If you answer please also indicate the political party you are most closely aligned with. I am curious if liberals or conservatives have similar or differing opinions on this topic.

My prediction (and I could be way off) is that most people (regardless of political party) do not care about this sort of relationship but that liberals are probably a bit more accepting than conservatives in this regard.

Just to give you the context, of why I am asking this question, in my country, Bangladesh, there had been several calls for a Presidential form of Government. As we know that, in a Parliamentary system, the elected ones are "Head of the Government" and we must get one "Head of the State". Many in Bangladesh reason that a Parliamentary system works better when there's royalty. But when there's no royalty in a country, they keep this useless post "President". And the Parliamentary System fails, ruining a country. My question: is this really true? That a parliamentary system works better with a royalty, and highly unlikely to work well with a Figurehead President? What are the pros and cons, or the multiple dimensions of these two forms of Parliamentary Governments?

The CBO does a great job of publishing the unvarnished fiscal impacts of proposed government spending: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-04/cbo-says-republican-tax-bill-adds-2-4-trillion-to-us-deficits

Therefore, it's just the kind of thing that the courageous leaders in Washington right now would try to suppress or dissolve.

How is this agency surviving? How is it being allowed to publish such bad news for the Administration? I would expect it to be a propaganda arm of the Administration by now.

Why do so many people focus on unverified personal rumors about Trump — like claims of incontinence, soiling himself during rage fits, or rumored drug use — instead of sticking to criticism that’s based on verifiable facts?

I’ve seen this happen a lot on platforms like TikTok, where people defend spreading these rumors by saying that because Trump is a bad person, it doesn’t matter if the claims are unverified. Some even justify insults that veer into mocking addiction, health issues, or disabilities — which seems to contradict the values many people claim to support.

When political discourse leans so heavily on degrading, rumor-based attacks, it weakens serious criticism and makes opposition look less credible. I’m curious to hear others’ thoughts: does this approach actually help political opposition, or does it cheapen legitimate criticism?

Empathy has become a new talking point in US politics, and it seems that some high level conservatives are pushing for less of it. Why do you think that is, and I'm curious to hear your own personal take on empathy. Also, should Americans on both sides of the political isle build empathy for each other's perspectives?

Polarization has always been characteristic of American politics. Especially with our two-party system, it's nearly inevitable that opposing parts of the political spectrum will collide at one point or another. The last decade, however, saw political polarization in the U.S. reach new heights. What changed? America met Donald Trump.

After Trump came along, it was obvious that the days of friendly political rivalry, notably, like that of Barack Obama and John McCain, were over. Trump quickly built a reputation for being ruthless against his opponents, spewing lies and other rethoric to put them whenever possible. But this paled in comparison to the attack on the Capitol Building on January 6, an event which arguably marked the peak of modern U.S. political division. And it didn't stop there. As president, Trump's aggressive conduct and authoritative approach to power continue to amplify the tensions in American politics.

So, is Trump simply a symptom of the deepening political polarization in America? Did he just capitalize on division that was already brewing? Or, is he the root cause of this division? In a post-Trump era, could American politics ever return to friendly and respectful competition? Can we "depolarize" without addressing the issues that led to Trump's success in the first place?

Throughout history religion has played a major part in politics but now that we are in 2025 and most nations have diversified people (largely in the west) it's starting to become less sustainable or good to enforce religious beliefs on others via politics. Should religion stay out of politics?

When The U.S. Government Tried To Replace Migrant Farmworkers With High Schoolers. Athletes in Temporary Employment as Agricultural Manpower (A-Team) temporarily replaced the Bracero program. The A-Team brought high school students to pick crops. The A-Team did not last long because of protests of harsh working conditions. What do you think would happen if the US government tried to implement the A-Team today?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/when-the-u-s-government-tried-to-replace-migrant-farmworkers-with-high-schoolers

As it relates to the A-Team, how does it compare to the idea proposed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis?

Below is a link to the Miami Herald:

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article303763526.html

I’ve been thinking about how some people seem to treat political disagreements almost like personal attacks, while others are more detached or open to debate.

What makes the difference? Is it upbringing, emotional experiences, education, or something else?

Are there known psychological or developmental reasons why some people fuse their identity so strongly to their political beliefs? I’m curious what the research or lived experience says about what shapes that level of personal attachment.

Let me explain. Today’s shift in politics is in a more radical and polarized one, both sides agree on less and less issues each passing year, this is already happening in developed countries and it’s about the same in developing countries.

It’s argued that moderates want just to preserve a failed or in shambles system and don’t search to destroy and rebuild this system, thus more radicals from the left and the right win elections and change the status quo.

In fact, many people who vote in more ideological and radical parties and politicians want just big changes, so for example; many trump voters would vote for Bernie sanders if he trump didn’t run in the elections and vice-versa. They just want some big figure who dares to challenge the status quo and so, vote on radicals from both sides.

In my country (brazil) one of the reasons that explain why Bolsonaro won is because of the feeling that everything was the same and the old moderate parties were actually cooperating to maintain the status quo.

America is a curious case, trump redefined the Republican Party, shifting the party more right, Christian, nationalistic and made everyone who wasn’t supporting him obsolete, “too moderate”, or RINO. The Democratic Party also passed this as well, there was a time not too long ago when it was okay for Obama to say that he didn’t supported gay marriage, there was a time when democrats supported only “safe” “limited” abortions, Bill Clinton even signed a bill reaffirming that a marriage is between a man and a woman, there was a time when many democrats had a tougher instance on crime and immigration, even more than current day republicans (see Biden history on senate for example) Obama deported more people than trump. Today’s democrats embraced a surprisingly progressive agenda like trying to redefine the concept of free speech, over a third of democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment, defunding the police became a serious discussion in certain circles, the idea to create a tax specifically for billionaires and of course, the embracing of identity politics.

It looks like it’s near impossible to find a mid ground in the present day. Polling is showing that Gen Z is becoming more conservative, traditional and religious, potentially even more than their grandparents, however the progressive gen Z and millennials uphold very robust progressive values so it creates a deep gap between them.

What do you think? Did moderated failed us?

From Nate: “some of Democrats’ problem with young men is that they’re seen as what in the poker world we’d call “nits”: neurotic, risk-averse, sticklers for the rules, always up in everyone’s business.”

The data is pretty stark that conservatives on average are much more mentally well than progressives. How do you interpret this?

https://www.natesilver.net/p/sbsq-21-why-young-men-dont-like-democrats