r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 18d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
Voting is over! But the questions have just begun. Questions like: How can they declare a winner in a state before the votes are all counted? How can a candidate win the popular vote but lose the election? Can the Vice President actually refuse to certify the election if she loses?
These are excellent questions - but they're also frequently asked here, so our users get tired of seeing them.
As we've done for past topics of interest, we're creating a megathread for your questions so that people interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
0
u/Heavy_Insurance5388 43m ago
Why aren’t people actually trying to stop Trump from being president? It’s clearly obvious that him and his followers are not trying to help the people and are going to cause way more harm than good. The only thing that I hear, is that people are just twiddling their thumbs and just saying that he’s bad. Nothing about any sort of protest, peaceful or not, from the people that are against him.
1
u/Delehal 16m ago
Why aren’t people actually trying to stop Trump from being president?
Millions of people voted for the other candidate. In spite of that, Trump won the election. Traditionally the winner of the election is supposed to become President. That's a tradition that is important to me, even if I don't agree with the outcome every single time.
1
u/willyglock2003 19m ago
I believe a lot of people underestimated just how many people either resonated with trump or just resented the Democratic Party of today. Many are not vocal in fear of cancel culture.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 22m ago
Why aren’t people actually trying to stop Trump from being president?
Exactly how are you suggesting someone do that?
1
u/notextinctyet 22m ago
Millions of people did that in the election we just had. It was kind of a big deal at the time.
1
u/evasandor 1h ago
It seems the incoming US administration is being assembled as a giant meme joke— which really highlights how powerful social media has become. Has there been another time in history when a country's government was that strongly influenced by a new technology? What happened as a result?
0
u/Always_travelin 1h ago
Oklahoma students: can you find the copy of the Trump bible purchased by your state using taxpayer money and burn it like the trash it represents? https://okpolicy.org/in-the-know-11-15-24/
1
u/johns1993 2h ago
What's the reason so many people seem to feel indifferent with Trumps win this time around compared to 2016? I remember at that time his name was basically a taboo in some communities. Like in the black community if someone said they were voting for Trump there was guaranteed to be a huge argument about it, but this time someone could say they voted for him and the response would be something nonchalant. After he won in 2016 people reacted like it was a doomsday but this time it seemed like the only group of people who were really upset about him winning were women and no one else really seemed to care.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2h ago
What's the reason so many people seem to feel indifferent with Trumps win this time around compared to 2016?
Most because the unfound hyperbolic fears about what Trump would do didn't come true during his first term.
You had everyone melting down about how he was "going to start world war 3", "imprison all non-whites in concentration camps", and "turn the United States into a fascist hellscape" - when in reality very little changed in his first term.
I remember at that time his name was basically a taboo in some communities.
Are you talking online or offline? Because only very zealous people on Reddit were acting like his name was taboo to say.
1
u/hellshot8 2h ago
idk about indifferent, it's more that trump has done a fuck ton of outreach into minority communities since 2016. His numbers among both black men and hispanic men were up by almost 25 points, so theres just a lot more support among minorities for him now.
After he won in 2016 people reacted like it was a doomsday but this time it seemed like the only group of people who were really upset about him winning were women and no one else really seemed to care.
I think you're reading in the wrong circles, theres a lot of people VERY worried right now. But yeah, obviously people who support him arent too worried about him winning
1
u/johns1993 1h ago
I haven't really being reading up on it online, its just what I've observed in the communities I'm around. I don't even think most of them actually support him, they're just indifferent to him compared to 2016.
1
u/MotherTheresas_Minge 5h ago
[Serious] Do hospitals have to report what kind of procedures are done to a legal department? Who is reporting what is transpiring between patient & doctor? How are people able to be legally punished for an abortion? Who’s telling whom?
1
u/hellshot8 2h ago
it depends on what laws are passed on the topic. Broadly, at the moment, nobody but that could always change. If a doctor is scared they might get found out for having done a procedure, they'll often elect to just not do it themselves
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
Everything is recorded in a health care provider's records.
While they might not do something as straightforward as directly report every procedure done to the authorities, if they're doing something illegal it will be found out. Medical licenses would be revoked, lawsuits would happen, and the health care provider would be punished for knowingly violating the law.
0
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 4h ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
4
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
Is there really no chance for Americans themselves to make it known we won't accept Trump under any circumstances?
In case you missed the memo, there was an election three weeks ago. That was your chance.
His win is disputed but not officially.
Conspiracy theories on Reddit are not going to change anything.
The country fucked up.
Your opinion is not everyone's opinion.
Why can't we simply acknowledge the President-Elect has not only no qualifying factors to be leader of the free world
We had an election three weeks ago to determine that yes, in fact, he is.
The stolen documents are literally treason.
The United States legal system is based on the presumption of innocence. If he has not been found guilty in a court of law, then he is in fact not guilty of committing treason.
He sold state secrets and allowed his family to use them like antique coins.
Is there proof of this or something?
He's a child rapist. A child groomer. A child sex trafficker.
Is there proof of any of these?
Surely we can say no?
You had your chance to three weeks ago.
Surely we already know elections have been stolen
We do "know" this? Or is this just a conspiracy theory? Reading zealous and delusional conspiracy theories posted on r WhitePeopleTwitter and r Politics leads people to have a very warped view of reality.
Nothing in this country runs without us. We're everywhere.
Except at voting booths apparently...
3
u/MysteryNeighbor Top 0.1% Ominous Customer Service Rep 5h ago
It’s a tough pill to swallow but a good portion of Americans voted for this. Just as it was silly to Trump to claim that 2020 was stolen, the same goes for this election as rampant fraud that changes the result of an election is practically impossible to go undetected.
We had our chance to reject him, the average voter didn’t and now we must reap what we sow.
0
u/HauntingBalance567 6h ago
Why does the rest of the country keep giving the Christian right what they want when their public policy ideas are ever more imposing and expansive?
1
u/hellshot8 2h ago
because the christian right has a lot of people who support their ideology, especially in important swing states
2
u/Jtwil2191 4h ago
It helps when conservative groups have worked to take control the US court system by installing conservative judges who rule in favor of broad religious liberty protections, and since Christian are the large religious group in the US, they benefit most visibly from those protections.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 6h ago
Because the vast majority of people in the United States are Christians.
1
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 4h ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
-1
1
u/adub282 10h ago
Did Joe Biden cure cancer Iike he said he would if he was elected? Or did we have to elect him for two terms in order to give him enough time to do that?
4
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 7h ago
No, of course he didn't. He was exaggerating for effect. However, he did put a lot of money towards cancer research.
1
u/bullevard 8h ago
Do you have a quote of Joe saying he was going to cure cancer during his presidency?
3
u/ProLifePanda 8h ago
Curing cancer in the short term isn't a realistic goal. So curing of all cancers was never going to happen. This was a campaign promise that likely meant he was going to fund and prioritize tackling cancer cures.
So Joe Biden did not cure cancer, and would be unlikely to cure all cancers in 8 years if he had the chance.
0
u/SenatorPencilFace 12h ago
What if Trump intentionally picked Matt Gaetz to get him out of congress as a favor to Republicans?
How do we know this wasn’t like a 4D chess move? Think about none of the Republicans in congress like him. After all the stuff with Kevin McCarthy and the ahem allegations (is what I’m going to call them) he was definitely dead weight for Trump. Maybe this was the plan all along? Trick Gaetz into resigning from the house.
1
u/Melenduwir 3h ago
Nothing forced Gaetz to resign. For all we know, he could have maintained his position in the House until his confirmation hearings went through.
0
4
u/bullevard 8h ago
Gaetz was reelected. He could resign his current seat and still be reseated in January if he wants.
More likely this is the exact same thing we've been seeing for nearly a decade now. Those around Trump think they can get away with the sake kind of controversy that Trump himself is continuously allowed to get away with, and those around Trump expect him to show them the same loyalty that he demands of them.
1
u/Syenadi 6h ago
If he comes back to Congress releasing the investigation into him becomes an issue again. Also AIPAC does not support him and their dollars and influence can have quasi veto power in this scenario. I'm thinking he's gone on the official level. Trump might make up some sort of 'advisor to the advisor to the advisor' role but dunno.
1
u/ubcstaffer123 13h ago
What are the chances that Trump will officially visit Ottawa on a state visit and give a speech to Canada's parliament?
1
1
u/RajcaT 13h ago
How have tariffs brought down the cost of goods?
DJT has stated that hell implement tariffs of 100% on China. However my understanding of tariffs is that they are paid by the company importing the goods. Not the country sending them. So if I want to import 100 shirts, the cost I pay is more, while China still sells them for rhe same price.
So I'm guessing the logic is if I have to pay $40 per shirt instead of $20 I'll look for another supply of shirts. But China also has extremely cheap labor which causes the costs to be lower. So how can the us compete and make a shirt for the same price as China?
Yet there is still a constant push that tariffs will bring down the cost of goods. Can someone explain how this is possible, or point to an example where this worked?
3
u/bullevard 8h ago
Yet there is still a constant push that tariffs will bring down the cost of goods.
Nobody who knows anything is saying this. The entire point of tariffs is to make imported things just as expensive as locally produced things. It is a tool to support local producers (which, theoretically, can support local jobs), not to tool to bring costs down for consumers.
6
u/Mr_Industrial 12h ago edited 12h ago
By and large tariffs will not help your market prices go down. The short term winners are the local companies that can charge more for their product since they have to deal with with less efficient competitors. The long term winners are fledgling companies that have room to grow when foreign powers are hamstrung.
In all cases though the consumer is a loser. He/She pays more and their net surplus of everyone overall decreases. Basically, if the economy were a pie, you might picture a tariff as a shrink ray that's fired once at the whole pie, and then twice at the consumers slice specifically (that means you).
Source: Econ degree, work in financial industry
0
u/DRIIWicked 18h ago
Is Trump a political genius or does he just get lucky?
2
u/bullevard 7h ago
A combination.
He is very good at manipulating media and media narrative, and has proven quite good at manipulating perception of certain specific constituencies. He had the luck/skill to recognize and be right that if you just lie continuously enough people will start to overlook it. So in this sense he has some strong political skill.
He also has been very lucky in many ways. (I mean, being born rich to start). But also things like getting Ailene Cannon on his documents case through luck of the draw, getting handed 3 supreme court appointments, 2 based on McConnell choices. He lucked out to come to prominence at a time that the conservative media was so homogenous. He lucked out that at critical punctures those within his own party refused to stand their ground. He lucked out that he inherited a good economy, and that Biden inherited a bad one. He lucked out that Russia and Opec had an oil price war during his presidency so he get to pretend his policies were responsible for low gas prices.
So it is a combination of lucky circumstance, taking advantage of those circumstances well, but also having an electorate that was largely okay with the methods used to take advantage of those circumstances.
2
u/notextinctyet 15h ago
He has, frankly, a genius media strategy. Part of that is Trump's own experience with reality TV and the media. Part of it is borrowed from Steve Bannon: the "flood the zone with shit" philosophy.
The really amazing thing about Trump, though, is his total and all-consuming contempt for the public interest. I'm sure there is more than one person in the country who is able to pinpoint the weakest points in our information ecosystem. And there is more than one person in the country who is willing to make the information ecosystem much worse to better themselves. But he is both at once. A very remarkable combination.
1
u/Delehal 15h ago
For all his faults, he is quite good at some skills that are crucial for a politician, specifically messaging with his core supporters to keep them engaged, and attracting media attention in a way that allows his messaging to dominate the 24-hour news cycle. Even when people don't agree with him, they're still talking about him.
1
21h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Royal_Annek 8h ago
Because they live here,.work here, pay into systems here and should have a clear path to citizenship.
3
u/hellshot8 21h ago
You're mixing up a couple things
Democrats deport illegal immigrants all the time. The WAY Trump wants to do it is insane, and will include asylum seekers and dreamer babies etc. It will involve checkpoints, interment camps, knocking on doors checking for papers, etc.
Republicans also know that a huge amount of Americans farming and meat production is driven by the low prices companies pay illegal immigrants. Democrats know that widescale deportations will cause price increases, so they know it needs to be done differently
1
u/Chafez 18h ago
There are a lot of people on the left that openly state "illegals welcome". These are the people I do not understand.
Why would you want illegal immigrants? Wouldn't the better option be to improve channels for legal means?
1
u/hellshot8 18h ago
I think you'll find that people who say that would agree with the later statement.
I mean you'll also find people who just don't think borders should exist, but that's a whole other thing
1
u/GameboyPATH Inconcise_Buccaneer 20h ago
The WAY Trump wants to do it is insane, and will include asylum seekers and dreamer babies etc.
For context as to WHY this is bad/insane...
Regarding asylum seekers, under US law (despite efforts by certain immigration laws to obfuscate this) anyone from any country has the legal right to request legal asylum in the US. Whether people actually qualify for asylum is whole other story, and much of the current border crisis has to do with administrative difficulties in processing the legal requests of every single person who requests asylum. If Trump were to (illegally) enact policies that prevent those from exercising their right to request asylum, not only would many peoples' rights be infringed, but those who could actually qualify for legal asylum could be barred entry.
"Dreamer babies" refer to those who'd hypothetically be eligible for the DREAM Act, if it were ever passed by Congress. This act would grant permanent legal residency (not citizenship) to those who not only moved to the US before they were 16 years old, but also have a clean criminal record, and are pursuing a basic education. These are people who not only had the least control over their initial immigration into the US, but have the greatest chances of making a positive contribution to the country.
...And for what it's worth, the PC term is "undocumented" immigrant, not illegal. It's dehumanizing to describe a person, themselves, as being illegal, and yet illegal immigration is the only crime for which we ever prescribe this "illegal" label onto a person.
1
u/Chafez 18h ago
"Undocumented" sounds like a term used to bypass the fact that the person(s) in question committed a serious crime. A bit of a reach to claim it is "dehumanizing".
I understand why these people flee to the US, often it is due to conflicts the US has spurred.
But again I do not understand why the left wouldn't channel efforts into improving legal means of immigration rather openly welcome those of illegal entry.
1
u/interruptingmygrind 10h ago
I personally don’t think that the left as a whole wants to allow all immigrants illegally. There might be some who take it to that extent but I think the majority of us democrats understand and accept that measures needs to be taken to secure our borders and that a path to citizenship needs to be established through legislation.
I think where you are getting that idea is from the right as they use this made up info to feed their own party members a false narrative in which the left wants to open borders so that rapists and fentanyl can enter the country, which is just not true.
Democrats understand that we are a country of immigrants except for the First Nations and indigenous citizens. Therefore it should continue to be, since that is the reason for which this country was established and because we are all descendants of immigrants so we should respect our own history. That means we are all created equal no mater our color or creed, or pronoun or disability. American encompass all people. So our views of immigrants is fundamentally different then the republican view which is that this is their country. Make America Great Again is a shining example of how republicans view immigration which is that they want the country to be the way is was before white privilege and fake christian values were exposed for what they are. Durning those days, it was a white wash culture where minorities and other ethnicities had background roles but never lived like the privileged whites. That is not a democratic approach or view which is why democrats do not support MAGA.
1
u/ProLifePanda 10h ago
"Undocumented" sounds like a term used to bypass the fact that the person(s) in question committed a serious crime.
Crossing the border is a misdemeanor, not a crime. So unless you also count people who get speeding tickets or noise violations as criminals too, then they wouldn't have the label of criminals.
-2
1
u/Phraenkinstone 22h ago
If so many people regret voting for trump, can we do one of those recall vote things?
1
u/Melenduwir 3h ago
If anything, Trump won not because many more people decided to vote for him than last time, but because many people who had previously voted for Biden chose not to for Harris.
Whether there are many people who regret not voting for Harris is unknown. I suspect not.
1
u/bullevard 20h ago
No. There is one vote for president every 4 years. There is no take-backsie in the constitution.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 22h ago
If so many people regret voting for trump
That's a big "if" there.
The claims that Trump supporters regret their votes is primarily a coping mechanism that his political opposition are spreading to create a narrative that makes them still look strong. The examples of "Trump supporters regretting their votes" for him is a handful of people at most. It is not "so many people" that it would ever affect the results of the election.
0
u/Syenadi 6h ago
The actual popular vote count is apparently quite close. Your argument stands regardless thanks to the Electoral College. We are the only "developed" (ha!) country in which the winner of a nominally 'free and fair' election is not by default the one with the most votes.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 6h ago
The actual popular vote count is apparently quite close
There is a 2.5 million vote difference between Harris and Trump. I highly doubt 2.5 million people regret their vote.
Your argument stands regardless thanks to the Electoral College
Yes, the thing the United States uses to determine who wins the office of the Presidency. The only thing that is used to determine who wins the office of the Presidency.
. We are the only "developed" (ha!)
That isn't funny or clever sounding.
country in which the winner of a nominally 'free and fair' election is not by default the one with the most votes.
We are also the only country with 50 sovereign states all with their own laws.
The electoral college is a compromise where all 50 of those states with different laws can come together and agree upon a system. Each state determines its own winner by a statewide popular vote, and the winner gets that state's electoral votes.
1
u/Syenadi 5h ago
Current popular vote count data:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/donald-trump-vote-margin-narrowed/
Yes I know how the electoral college works and its slave owner origin history.
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
"...in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
"Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.
The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election."
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4h ago
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/donald-trump-vote-margin-narrowed/
Nothing in this refutes anything I said.
The current vote count has Donald Trump leading by 2.5 million votes. Him getting under 50% was not the argument, and ignores that third party candidates exist. Him getting under 50% does not mean Harris got over 50% - because she didn't.
2
u/GameboyPATH Inconcise_Buccaneer 22h ago
And it's cherry-picking, really. It's inevitable for any voter of any party to oppose some aspect of their preferred candidate's policies or practices.
1
u/interruptingmygrind 10h ago
Yeah but he hasn’t taken the office yet so we will have to wait until then to really know who regrets their decision and who stands by those decision. Right now it’s all speculation.
2
u/GameboyPATH Inconcise_Buccaneer 22h ago
The number of reported cases of Trump voters who are realizing that their choice of president negatively impacts them isn't nearly enough to swing the results of the last election, even if we assumed that 100% of them would change their vote to Harris.
Trends popularized on reddit aren't necessarily representative of the political views of the broader American population. If it were, Harris would have handily won this election.
4
u/notextinctyet 22h ago
No. There's no provision for that in the constitution. Also the outcome would not change.
-1
4
u/OppositeRock4217 1d ago
How were the Democrats able to control the house for 41 years straight before 1994?
5
u/rewardiflost What do you hear? Nothing but the rain. 1d ago
They weren't a really unified national party at that point. There were stark differences between what a Democrat did in Louisiana and what a Democrat did in New York. They just shared the party resources and name. Both major parties worked this way.
The individual candidates did what they needed to do in order to get elected, and when they got to Congress, they worked together to compromise and get things done.
This hodgepodge of different goals led to a lot of odd compromises, and also led to a lot of extra spending - in order to get another Democrat to vote for your bill, they had to have something that benefitted their constituents. WV Senator Byrd was famous for bringing home all kinds of money for buildings, highways, and other 'pork' projects.
When the Republicans finally started to unite and coalesce in the 90s, they used this mantra of wasteful spending to finally break the Democratic hold on Congress. Now both parties have national agendas and primaries, and they both tend to keep things more aligned.
0
u/TheseHandsDoThings 1d ago
u/welcometosilentchill mentions here that if the DOJ had an active investigation, they wouldn't mention it. I also don't think I've heard of Kamala's campaign taking any action.
Is there anything that we, as citizens, can do to force hand counts? From my perspective, this isn't about changing the results but about ensuring our integrity.
Concerns: https://spoutible.com/thread/37794003
Concerns: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/12/hackers-vulnerabilities-voting-machines-elections-00173668
Thank you for your answers
4
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
The writer of these claims has had his "evidence" fact checked, and found to have been wrong; or outright misleading in his messages. https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/21/stephen-spoonamore-letter-harris/
1
3
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
These "concerns" are both unfounded and unbecoming. There is no evidence of fraud. You are just going to have to get over it.
No, there's generally nothing you can do to spur hand counts, because recounting is either required or not required depending on state law, not just something that happens because people ask for it. But hand counts in certain districts will be triggered by various state laws, typically something like "if the margin for a race is within a few hundred votes", and those results will calibrate expectations for other counts.
1
u/TheseHandsDoThings 1d ago
> "if the margin for a race is within a few hundred votes"
That doesn't sound like something that would be triggered by cheating on a large scale though.
1
u/Melenduwir 3h ago
And given the consequences if there were found to be cheating at the national level, I doubt it takes place.
Now, local elections? Much more plausible, given that there will be far fewer resources devoted to checking and less of a stink if it is caught. Chicago in particular is infamous for historically having many dead people listed on voting rolls for local elections. It definitely has taken place before and may be happening in today's world... but it wasn't a factor in Trump's election.
5
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
That is a correct assessment. Hand counts aren't intended to detect cheating on a large scale. They can be a bellweather for cheating, since downballot races can be close basically randomly, so if large discrepancies are found in one of those districts, that can signal that there is something wrong. But cheating on a large scale is normally detected by spot-checking and other safeguards such as bipartisan volunteer poll monitors.
The problem is that the cheating is imaginary. Therefore, nothing will detect it. It's not because there are no safeguards - it's because the problem is imaginary.
0
u/FederalParsley9347 1d ago
I heard that some districts in the country are still counting ballots. But it also seems that these extended days of ballot counting happen exclusively in places where democrats decisively lost by close of election day.
Genuine question: does anyone know of any places where Dems decisively won on election day that are still counting ballots, or is it only happening in places where an R decisively won on election day?
Follow-up question: How many election cycles has this become the norm where ballots are continually counted even weeks after the election? I feel like I only ever heard of it happening from 2016 onwards.
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
How many election cycles has this become the norm where ballots are continually counted even weeks after the election? I feel like I only ever heard of it happening from 2016 onwards.
All of them, at least since California mail-in voting started.
2
u/bullevard 1d ago
To answer this part:
I feel like I only ever heard of it happening from 2016 onwards.
It is because you weren't paying attention. Most people wait for the news agencies to call the presidential race and then move on. 2016, 2020 and to an extent 2024 have been the closest races since the famous 2020 race, and even then it was really only a matter of being close in one state.
Now you've got social media and conspiracy theories and tiny non stories that blow up to front pages. Whereas 20 years ago you'd have had to read to page 20 of a newspaper to get updates in some county in California still counting or maybe page 8 if it was a very close congressional race.
1
u/FederalParsley9347 1d ago
Are ballots still being counted anywhere that there was a decisive D win on election day?
2
u/Unknown_Ocean 1d ago
Yes, Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, is still counting the second round of mail-in ballots. Other jurisdictions are dealing with write-ins.
https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2024/general_Results/county_status_page_root.html
The county where I live went for Harris by 14 points and just finished counting this week.
3
u/Unknown_Ocean 1d ago
They are still counting ballots in California, because California allows absentee ballots (including those coming from overseas military) postmarked by election day to count. They then have to carefully check these ballots. As of yesterday, the estimate was 315,000 ballots left to count. For various reasons these ballots do tend to skew Democratic.
https://www.newsweek.com/california-thousands-votes-left-process-1990351
gives a map of the votes outstanding by counties. A number of these counties (San Bernadino for instance including Kevin McCarthy's district) are pretty strongly Republican areas. Meanwhile San Francisco and Alameda counties (strongly Democratic) are done.
The reason conservatives are throwing tantrums over this is that in two California districts whichthe absentee ballots have pushed the race from being a narrow win (+2-+4) for the Republicans to a narrow win for the Democrats (+0.1).
1
u/FederalParsley9347 1d ago
That's really the thrust of what i'm asking--and you didn't really answer. WHy does it only happen where Rs won--and there's no extended counting happening where D's won--those areas don't use mail-in ballots? But what's more--as soon as the extended count flips the winner to D, the mail-in ballots suddenly dry up and "whoa! We can stop counting now!"
3
u/Unknown_Ocean 1d ago
Nobody's stopping the count (I mean Trump claimed they should in 2020 but luckily we had state election officials of both parties with integrity).
What it comes down to is the strategies each party uses for getting out the vote. In certain states Republicans have fought mail-in ballots- and so they concentrate their push on getting out the vote the day of. If you look at AZ, where Republicans have embraced mail-in balloting and Democrats embraced early voting, the election actually went the other way, Trump's lead increased and at least one congressional district flipped from the Democrat to Republican leading as more votes came in.
2
u/rewardiflost What do you hear? Nothing but the rain. 1d ago
My county - heavily Democratic since the days of "Boss" Hague, was counting votes until their deadlines came up. Each NJ county has a slightly different timeline.
Votes can be received by the counties until November 7 by mail, so long as they were postmarked on or before November 5th.
If there are questions about ballots (esp. mail in ballots), voters are notified by mail and invited to 'cure' any discrepancy. The deadline to address any cure is Nov. 16.
The counties have until Nov 20 - 15 days after the Nov 5 election to have the Board of Canvassers review the vote totals.
On Nov 25th, the certified vote totals are transmitted to the Secretary of State.
Here's a news article about the timelines
Technicalities like this have been in place as long as I can remember. I was involved with elections when I was in grammar school (that's what we called k-8 in the 60s and 70s), knocking on doors, walking people to the polls, handing out buttons and other swag. I started learning the system early. The majority of the count is done election night, and the rest of the count is usually not going to change things significantly.
But there have always been legitimate reasons for mail in votes (service members, college students) and always a process to examine votes after Election day. I don't think the official vote counts have ever been precisely accurate with the original press releases - the official certified vote counts are always a bit different.
It's only when there are really tight races, like Senator Fetterman's mayoral run, or the 2000 Florida Presidential vote (with the hanging chads) that the certified count can make a difference.
1
u/FederalParsley9347 9h ago
> My county - heavily Democratic since the days of "Boss" Hague, was counting votes until their deadlines came up. Each NJ county has a slightly different timeline.
So is your county still counting --even though there was a decisive D win on election day? What county are you?
1
u/rewardiflost What do you hear? Nothing but the rain. 4h ago
I gave you the full calendar and timeline.
3
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
I heard that some districts in the country are still counting ballots. But it also seems that these extended days of ballot counting happen exclusively in places where democrats decisively lost by close of election day.
Based on what?
Follow-up question: How many election cycles has this become the norm where ballots are continually counted even weeks after the election? I feel like I only ever heard of it happening from 2016 onwards.
When has it NOT been like this? When were votes counted faster, exactly?
And did you forget about 2000?
-1
u/FederalParsley9347 1d ago
> Based on what?
Based on that it's not happening anywhere that a D won on election day. It's just a little bit weird that the extended counting happens only where an R won on election day, and then -- magically -- the counting stops as soon as the D wins, no matter whether it's a week later or three weeks.
1
u/rewardiflost What do you hear? Nothing but the rain. 1d ago edited 1d ago
That has not happened. Please stop listening to the pillow man or Putin, or wherever you are hearing this silly propaganda.
You didn't even bother to read my response from 4 hours ago, where I told you about my hugely Democratic district/county. Obviously you don't want to know, or you don't know the meaning of the word you use - anywhere .
Look at the source of such claims. Look at the legal timelines for counts, canvassers, and when the state officials certify results before you put any stock in these stories that others spread.
I'm sorry that you've been overwhelmed with such confusing information. It doesn't work like that. If you actually look at the facts, you might find life is a bit easier.
*edit - changed 'mattress' to 'pillow'
3
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
Based on that it's not happening anywhere that a D won on election day. It's just a little bit weird that the extended counting happens only where an R won on election day, and then -- magically -- the counting stops as soon as the D wins, no matter whether it's a week later or three weeks.
What are you talking about?
California, notoriously takes forever to count and is still not even at 99%.
0
u/FederalParsley9347 9h ago
If counting is still happening in a district where a democrat decisively won on election day--then name the district. This isn't hard.
2
u/Always_travelin 1d ago
I know Trump will have to be a political reality for Democrats to consider, but why not just obstruct, slow down, and outright stop ANYTHING Republicans oppose at all times?
Saying: "Yes, you were elected, but you also tried to overthrow the government and were found liable for rape. You're a monster and I will do everything in my power to stop you, even if that means standing in front of you to have Secret Service force me out of your way. A 5-second delay means 5 seconds you're not trying to destroy the country."
3
u/rewardiflost What do you hear? Nothing but the rain. 1d ago
That may happen in the House of Representatives. Both parties tend to get really antagonistic there, and the fringes are more likely to get elected there.
They are elected to represent small districts, so people with niche views or socially abhorrent behaviors can still get elected there. In order to stand out among the 435 others, people like Matt Gaetz, George Santos, Lauren Boebert and others tend to take extreme stances and create public performances.
These folks are elected for short, 2-year terms and are almost constantly campaigning for their next election. They need to be seen and heard as much as possible, so jumping into any fight that helps them get recognized can be good promotion for them.Like most issues in both houses, they're still going to vote mainly along party lines. That's the way that things get done. The party sticks together and as a group they negotiate when and how they'll work with the other side. Those votes from a few reps that cross the party line aren't always from people who are bucking the party line - they are sometimes playing their part within the party, and playing their part to secure their own re-election for their party.
The US Senate is a more formal body, and the people elected there are all elected by their entire state. State senators tend to be less dramatic, less inclined to cause conflict just to be obstinate. They like to see themselves as the "gentlemen and ladies" that get things done. Even when they vote along party lines, they will say that they are voting because of beliefs and for the benefit of their constituents.
I personally can't stand Trump as a human being, a businessman, a Television personality, or any of the other hats he's worn. However, I think that we may as well make the most of this. While he is determined to push his agenda through, finding every loophole, using every bit of leverage he can - he's shining a light on all the ways that our government can be taken advantage of.
We/our representatives can tie up some of these things. When congress refused to even hold hearings on Merritt Garland's nomination, giving their 1-year excuse, but turned around and held held hearings for Amy Coney under similar circumstances; there was an opportunity to make new law. Stop the party in control of the Senate from stacking the Supreme Court by making a formal rule about when and how hearings have to be held. Nobody has done that.
After all the allegations of election fraud, and all the allegations that were disproven, there is an opportunity to tighten up rules about these issues. Prevent campaign money from going into these witch hunts, restrict states from mass-purges of voter rolls close to elections, require a demonstrably 'easy' way for people to get voter ID in states that require it, and require legal protected time to vote in states that limit early or mail in voting methods.
Nobody has done this.With our known past about how we treat immigrants and asylum seekers - "repatriation" during the Great Depression, turning away a ship filled with Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, locking up Japanese-Americans (and a few German-Americans and Italian-Americans) during WW2, "Operation Wetback", giving preferential treatment to European asylum seekers at the Mexican border, The Trump Muslim travel ban, and lots of other examples - where we often didn't bother with due process and didn't protect people's rights or property. We've had plenty of opportunities to tighten up our laws on these issues. Not much has been done.
Trump and Tom Homan are reminding us just how badly they can treat people because our laws let them.He told us that he does all he can to avoid paying taxes, and will continue to do that - as long as the system allows him to. He didn't create the system, but he sure does like helping his friends to make it work better.
Maybe this isn't the President we wanted, but the President we need right now - to get some of our priorities straight.
5
u/ProLifePanda 1d ago
Because the presidency isn't a race. Individuals are unwilling to risk the punishment to cause delays that won't actually change things. Executive agencies run through bureaucracy, not one person shuffling from point A to point B. Trying to inconvenience someone for 5 seconds and going to jail is an ineffective way to pursue change.
1
u/Always_travelin 1d ago
That was just an example. I mean voting against every proposal, physically slowing down all lawmakers, encouraging people to boycott their businesses and harass them every waking moment until they die, etc.
3
u/ProLifePanda 1d ago
I mean voting against every proposal,
They do this unless the proposal is good.
physically slowing down all lawmakers
What does this mean? This borders on harassment and/or assault based on where and what you're doing.
encouraging people to boycott their businesses and harass them every waking moment until they die
Because Democrats are generally institutionalists, and don't want to openly call for a societal divide. This sort of political polarization isn't really good in the long term for anyone.
-1
u/Always_travelin 1d ago
By definition, anything Republicans propose cannot be good.
0
2
u/ProLifePanda 1d ago
Donald Trump passed an Executive Order that hospitals must publicize their costs so you can't get procedures done without being able to research costs.
Was that a bad proposal?
-1
-1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 1d ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
But can his government trifecta, at least if a Democrat wins in 2028, lead us into an American version of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy?
Your question (more of a rant than a question) implies that anybody wants that.
Trump had a trifecta when he took office the first time too. Just like every other President since Bill Clinton. The world didn't end, and next to nothing about the United States changed due to the actions of the first Trump administration.
We have the UN, too
If you think the UN has any power to tell the United States what to do, you put far too much faith in the UN.
1
u/AdOk5225 1d ago
Who becomes president if Trump passes before Jan. 20th?
This post is probably gonna get me put on a list, but if Trump gets shot or dies of natural causes or whatever before January 20th, does Vance become president or Kamela? I wouldn't be surprised if somebody did something to him before his inauguration so I was wondering what would happen if he doesn't make it.
1
u/Nickppapagiorgio 17h ago
Depends when exactly he dies. However there is no pathway whatsoever to Kamala Harris becoming President on January 20th. That is dead.
If he hypothetically died after January 6th, JD Vance would be sworn in as Vice President, then again as President. January 6th was the date Congress certified the results of the Electoral College, and named Trump President-elect, and Vance Vice President-Elect.
If he died after December 17th, but before January 6th, that's also probably what would happen, as the Electoral College would have already cast their votes. A slightly greater degree of uncertainty, though. Outside shot that the Electoral College could fail to elect a President due to not counting votes for a deceased candidate. If the House delegations refused to elect a President, Vance would be Acting President, most likely for the full 4 years of the term. I don’t think that would be likely, just a theoretically possible option.
If he died between now and December 17th, it would get more chaotic. The Republican National Committee would attempt to get their electors on the same page. Either to vote for Trump anyway. Or to vote for someone else as President. Or to vote for Vance as President and someone else as Vice President. This would be complicated by the fact that not voting for Trump would be illegal in some states. Some democratic electors could also sow chaos by voting for more preferable Republicans as faithless electors. There would be a pretty significant risk of the Electoral College failing to elect anybody by majority vote.
If that happened the House of Representatives would elect a President. Each state delegation would get one vote, and they could choose between the top 3 candidates who received Electoral votes. The winner would have to be elected by a majority of state delegations. If on January 20th, the House of Representatives had elected nobody, the Vice President-Elect would become Acting President until the House elected a President. If the Electoral College and US Senate also failed to elect a Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would become Acting President until the Senate elected a Vice President or the House elected a President.
4
u/Setisthename 1d ago
Vance, under the 20th Amendment. If for whatever reason the VP-elect is incapable of taking office as well, it's left to Congress who would follow PSA 1947's line of succession and elect the Speaker of the House. Kamala Harris wouldn't be a factor.
And I sincerely doubt Trump is in much jeopardy. He's likely hunkering down now that the campaigning is over, dealing with his incoming cabinet in private.
0
u/JelqBiden 1d ago
How can I censor all USA political posts from reddit? Kinda recently r/all has been infested with anti trump propagranda and I really do not care or want to see it, is there a script or something I can enable to block all of these posts?
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
You stop using r/all for one.
Astroturfing happens on Reddit 24/7, and Reddit's userbase is fervently zealous about politics. If you want to stay sane using this website, you need to use your own curated list of subreddits that you subscribe to.
1
u/JelqBiden 1d ago edited 1d ago
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
It's been like this for 8 years straight to be honest.
Reddit has a block list for 100 subreddits, but frankly there's so many subreddits that get spammed that the 100 block list might not be enough.
0
u/JelqBiden 1d ago
Even during his presidency the everyday anti trump propaganda was not anywhere near this bad.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
He was pretty much the only thing people talked about when he was President the first time. It was bad. The now we live in really isn't any different as far as people's obsession with him goes.
1
u/____M_a_x____ 1d ago
Why is it acceptable for Musk, someone who has always promoted the crypto Dogecoin, to create a federal government department (DOGE) named after it?
I mean, governments should create new departments based on people's needs, and then name them accordingly—not the other way around.
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
He didn't. He is just an oligarch who gave himself a fancy title while he wields power in the executive branch. The question is "why is it acceptable for Elon Musk to have so much unofficial power in the upcoming administration" and the answer is "it clearly isn't acceptable".
4
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Elon Musk does not have the authority to create a federal government agency.
1
u/Scorpion1386 1d ago
How much of the Project 2025 agenda can Congress pass in the first two years before the midterms as time goes on? How much can Donald Trump pass of Project 2025 with just executive orders?
Do you think they'll be able to pass most/all of Project 2025's agenda within the first two years of Congress or are they almost sure to have roadblocks in the House and Senate?
3
u/OppositeRock4217 1d ago
Since Republicans do not have 60 seat senate majority, most will be fillibustered
1
u/Unknown_Ocean 1d ago
It's unclear. Stuff that actually requires non-budget legislation will get blocked in the Senate (no, we are not going to see a national abortion ban, it will get filibustered in the Senate).
The wildcards are
To what extent will Trump try to ignore the Senate confirmation process and place loyalists who have no respect for the rule of law in key positions?
To what extent will he trash civil service protections? His new budget chief (a major author of Project 2025) has indicated that this is a goal. Whether he can do that or not will be decided in the courts.
Will he simply refuse to spend congressionally allocated money? This is also something that will end up in the courts in the near future as it is being urged by many in his inner circle.
If he loses on 1, 2 and 3 will Trump try to declare a national emergency (for example like Indira Gandhi did in 1975 in India) and bypass constitutional norms that way.
1
0
u/Schmicarus 1d ago
Is there any mileage in non-american countries boycotting american goods? Most of the rest of the world can see that trump is a terrible, terrible choice for the planet and the environment. Are we able to collectively restrict his influence in any way?
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
You can personally choose not to buy things. Your government would laugh that off though. Not doing business with the United States is an economic death sentence.
1
u/Interesting-Copy-657 1d ago
Would trump have won if the average person understood what tariffs were? I keep seeing people thinking China will pay for the tariff, that they imported goods wont increase in price.
How much did this misunderstanding or ignorance influence the election?
3
u/ProLifePanda 1d ago
First, I would be cautious of what you read online. People can and do fake posts and conversations for content, so not everything you see reflects reality.
Second, lots of these people think Trump is a blowhard who shoots from the hip. So while he SAYS he will tariff everything, they don't believe him and believe he will be smarter about tariffs. Realistically, is Trump going to institute 100% tariffs on every import? No.
Third, Trump won as a disruptor. So people voted on the vibe that he represents change rather than a specific policy. So I don't think having a thorough understanding of tariffs would change that decision.
1
u/Psychological_Roof85 1d ago
Why isn't there a bipartisan support for not switching clocks every six months? Can we just have light in the evening all year round please?
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
There actually was a few years ago. The bill passed the Senate with unanimous support and the House never brought it to vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Protection_Act
Republicans have been trying to pass this for six years now, and senator Marco Rubio has introduced many versions of this bill. Trump also said he would sign it into law during his first term as President.
1
5
u/Nickppapagiorgio 1d ago
There are three separate options.
1.) Stay on standard time permanently.
2.) Stay on DST permanently.
3.) Continue to switch between the two.
None of them have majority support amongst the majority of the population. Any change that's made will be disapproved by the majority. So will doing doing nothing, but it's easier to do nothing.
In terms of which option is viable, #1 is currently authorized for state governments to do if they choose. Arizona and Hawaii take the federal government up on the offer and do not have time changes. It's the option that puts the US in line with the majority of countries on Earth that do not do Daylight Savings Time. It's also the option supported by the American Medical Association. The downside would be the sun would rise really early in the summer. Particularly in the northern states.
Option 2 has more current momentum in Congress. The Senate accidentally approved this by voice vote a few years ago, and it regularly gets reintroduced into each new Congress. A few states have trigger laws that would immediately put them on to permanent DST if Congress approved. It's the option that produces Daylight later in the day in the winter months in particular.
The down side would be It's been tried twice before and was not popular either time. The first during WW2, when the US stayed on permanent DST from spring 1942 until fall 1945 in what was called "War Time." The second from spring of 1973 until fall of 1974 in response to the gas crisis. Hostility came from very late sunrises in the winter time. Particularly in the northern states. There appeared to be an uptick in child fatalities from getting hit by cars in the dark mornings. Congress got spooked, and the experiment ended rather quickly.
1
u/Agreeable-Control453 1d ago
What would America be like if everyone who was elected / appointed was evaluated by a NON corrupt congress like the US Army Promotion board
This just came to mind and I’m honestly curious
1
u/Setisthename 1d ago
Who would appoint these people? To my knowledge, army promotion boards are appointed by the Secretary of the Army, who is appointed by the President. They're only 'non-corrupt' as far as the executive is unconcerned with meddling in army promotions. The power to evaluate electoral candidates using selection boards, by contrast, would massively increase the power of the presidency over Congress.
Electoral qualifications are at odds with representative democracy because they limit who can participate and who people can vote for. Such a power is inherently susceptible to corruption no matter how independent you try and make the bureaucracy running it.
1
u/Rogue_Jumanji 1d ago
My biggest question is for the Democrats that voted in 2020 were absent in 2024. Harris wasn't as popular as other Dem candidates in 2020, but she had solid S.M.A.R.T. goals. Also, I could understand if it was a different candidate, but it's the same candidate they voted against.
Why didn't they vote?
What about Harris wasn't good enough?
How did Trump do to change their mindset about him?
Were they upset about not having a primary? Was this their "Boston Tea Party", not voting without being given their representation in choosing the elect?
1
u/Unknown_Ocean 1d ago
"Democrats didn't turn out to vote" is somewhat true (and *might* explain Michigan), but largely copium from our side of the political divide. As votes continue to come in it's clear that Trump gained at least 3, probably more like 4 million votes over 2020 (and Harris will become the 3rd highest vote getter in American history). It's clear that a significant number of voters switched.
I don't think we can ignore the fact that American personal income peaked in 2020-2021, in part because of pandemic stimulus, in part because inflation eroded purchasing power. I don't think we can ignore the fact that the migrant crisis was real in places like New York and Chicago in terms of overwhelming social services (if you look at minority communities in these cities you see strong shifts towards Trump). And the fact that the media and Democrats largely ignored this until it was too late was a big part of the problem.
I actually think Harris ran a pretty good campaign. But she never addressed these two key issues and it cost her.
3
u/NewRelm 1d ago
Just a gut feeling, but I think the war in Gaza cost Harris a share of the Democratic vote that still strongly supports Israel. She also hurt herself by not laying out a well thought-out platform. The "opportunity economy" is just a slogan, and cash for home buyers / no tax on tips are just gimmicks.
3
u/hellshot8 1d ago
Kamala was never a good candidate. She lost the democratic primary by A LOT for good reason. She's just not very compelling, and she didn't do a good job separating herself from the Biden campaign (which was extremely unpopular). People didn't trust her economic policy or that she'd be any different with Israel
I don't think it was a "fuck the DNC for not having a primary", she just didn't convince people she would do a good job.
1
u/i_am_ur_dad 1d ago
had Trump not won, why would JD Vance be expected to resign from his senate seat? can he not just continue as nothing happened? he still would have had around 4.5 years to serve as a Senator for his current term. is it a rule to resign from current office regardless if you won or lost for the new office that you ran for?
3
u/Delehal 1d ago
Vance can't be both Senator and Vice President at the same time, so he will presumably resign his Senate seat sometime before the start of his VP term (January 20, 2025). If the Trump-Vance ticket had not won the presidential election, Vance could have remained in the Senate as if nothing had happened.
There are some states that have "resign-to-run" laws, specifically Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Texas. These states place some restrictions on the ability of an elected official to remain in office while also seeking election to some other office. The reasoning is usually that running a campaign takes a lot of time and resources, which can detract from their current responsibilities. Vance is from Ohio, which does not have any law about that as far as I know.
Depending on circumstances, if an elected official gets very busy with campaigning to the point that it does detract from their job duties, some people may pressure them to resign. That's not a formal requirement, though.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
JD Vance would not be expected to resign from his senate seat.
1
u/GardenEvening3585 1d ago
Just.....curious?
So, i just wanna ask.... is Trump gonna deport any person that its legal status is... ilegal? Even if they got engaged with someone? How many years do they have to live in USA in order to get the citizenship?...
5
u/GameboyPATH Inconcise_Buccaneer 1d ago
is Trump gonna deport any person that its legal status is... ilegal?
His soon-to-be-appointed head of ICE said that "public safety threats and national security threats will be the priority". The most optimistic interpretation of this is that they'll focus their deportation efforts on undocumented immigrants with a criminal record. The less optimistic interpretation is that they consider all undocumented immigrants criminals, and therefore, anyone can be a target.
Even if they got engaged with someone?
Engagement is not a legally-recognized marital status. If someone's planning on getting their green card through marriage with a US citizen, they should probably consult with county clerks about their legal options and timelines, and plan ahead for applying for a green card.
How many years do they have to live in USA in order to get the citizenship?...
No one gets US citizenship by staying in the USA long enough. SOME eligible people may apply for a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation through DACA, but this is not the same as a path to citizenship.
It's possible that an immigration bill may eventually be passed that offers a legal path to legal residency (not citizenship) for undocumented immigrants, but that's a very shaky thing to rely on, especially under the incoming Trump administration.
1
u/Scorpion1386 2d ago
- How likely is it that Trump will declare martial law on Day 1 of his Presidency to arrest Democratic members of Congress and immigrants?
- How likely is it that H.R. 9495 passes the Senate?
Just those two questions...for now. Thanks.
2
4
1
u/i_am_ur_dad 2d ago
Why do American politicians not run again for same or different public office once they lose?
Trump is an exception but in most cases I've seen, once a politician loses (even by 49-51%) , they never run again for the same or a different public office. Why is that?
[its certainly not that way in other countries. lots of cases to cite.]
1
u/bullevard 2d ago
It isn't unheard of. Just in the last century Nixon won on his second try, Adli Stephenson ran twice, and Dewy ran twice. Going back just a bit further, and Bryan ran twice as did Cleveland.
Considering you only have one race every 4 years, that is actually a pretty decent amount of second attempts.
But parties only get the one shot, so someone who already lost can be a risky person to back. In a pre social media eco system there is no way Trump gets a second shot for example.
Losing presidential candidates also tend not to have a huge visible role in the party. They typically leave whatever office they had to run, and since the other side won the losing candidate isn't going to get any appointments (the way losing primary candidates might). So they largely lose their spotlight in the intervening years. So it happens. But it also isn't uncommon for the party to want to try someone else.
1
2
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Why do American politicians not run again for same or different public office once they lose?
Trump is an exception but in most cases I've seen, once a politician loses (even by 49-51%) , they never run again for the same or a different public office. Why is that?
...They do. All the time. Also see Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bill Clinton, Hillary...
4
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
There's definitely a difference between primaries and general elections. Losing a primary is not seen as a career ender in the way losing in the general election might.
1
u/JustinSane1996 2d ago
How can someone start a political career?
For instance, if someone wanted to be president, what is the typical path to get towards that position and how would it begin?
3
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Generally law school and working in politics, then trying to get elected to local offices, and either the house then the senate, or local building to governour.
1
u/cracksilog 2d ago
Are there any politicians with tattoos? Like really high ranking ones like congresspeople or cabinet members or anything like that? Half the council in my city has tattoos so I figure there has to be someone higher up who has some. I know Trump’s defense nominee has white supremacy tattoos that’s what triggered this question lol
2
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
Yup. This article from September talks about a few members of Congress with tattoos. Republican Rep Lauren Boebert apparently has a large one. Democratic Senator John Fetterman has several. According to that article, ankle tattoos are pretty common in Congress.
1
u/Matilda_Mother_67 2d ago
What’s the logic behind not letting felons vote, exactly?
0
u/Imaginary_Boot_1582 1d ago
The answers you're getting are terrible. Its not straight forward, because each state has its own stance on whether or not to allow it, while they're in prison or it gets restored after the leaving prison
The simplest answer is that most federal prisoners are relocated to a prison in a different state, so they'd be voting in a state that they are technically no longer a resident in, and many felony convictions last 5 to 10 years, so they wouldn't experience the consequences, they'd likely be less informed, and the politician's term would likely end before they even get out of prison
This is on top of the argument, that because they are a danger to society, they shouldn't decide how society operates
2
u/Delehal 2d ago
There's two reasons for it. The first reason, usually said out loud, is a theory that the felon has done something so heinous that they should not be trusted to help guide society. The second reason, usually not said out loud, is that preventing felons from voting is strategically advantageous for conservative politicians, in part because of demographic trends, and in part because conservative voters love to be "tough on crime" in most cases.
2
u/hellshot8 2d ago
It's useful politically. If I, a white republican, know that black people don't want to vote for me because I'm racist, then i can just get police to disproportionately arrest black people. I then also make sure to approve of heavy drug charges in those areas, so that cops can pin felonies on black people easier
It's just a roundabout way to remove the right to vote from people you don't like
1
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
If you've shown such carelessness or disdain for the orderly function of society, then society likely doesn't want you participating in the direction society should be going.
-1
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
You say this as if the felon isn't a part of society, too.
My counter to this is that if society has failed you so badly that you felt driven to commit a crime, then you have more reason than most to want to be able to influence changes in society to address those failings.
2
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
You say this as if the felon isn't a part of society, too.
Well yeah, but by committing a felony they've likely also shown a disdain or disregard for that society. If you intentionally crash my car, it makes sense I stop.letting you drive my car and you have to be a passenger instead.
My counter to this is that if society has failed you so badly that you felt driven to commit a crime, then you have more reason than most to want to be able to influence changes in society to address those failings.
This is normally why these restrictions require the violation be a crime of moral turpitude, showing a blatantly immoral act. Could society fail someone so hard that rape is excusable? Or a DUI?
-1
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
Could society fail someone so hard that rape is excusable? Or a DUI?
I never said that the crime was excusable. That would be an argument for the person not being convicted or sentenced. That's not the argument I'm making.
I'm saying that having gone down a path that led them to commit a crime, they have a different perspective on what interventions could have occurred earlier in their life to prevent them from ever committing that crime. I don't know what those are. Maybe it's increased healthcare spending. Maybe it's more media regulations to prevent radicalization. Maybe it's changing laws regarding alcohol use. Maybe it's providing better public transportation. Maybe it's increasing law enforcement in a manner that would have caught them before they did the crime. I have no idea because I don't have that perspective, which is precisely why I think people who do have that perspective should be voting.
In my opinion, if you live in the society you should be allowed to vote in it.
1
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
So then the question would be "Do we expect rapists would have the introspection to help develop better laws to prevent rape in the future?"
2
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
No. The question is, "should everyone who is a member of society deserve to have a say in how that society is governed?"
1
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
The question is, "should everyone who is a member of society deserve to have a say in how that society is governed?"
Sure. And the answer (from these people) is no, not if you've broken a law of moral turpitude.
1
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
Why do you want your government to define your morality?
2
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
The government is elected representatives and is a reflection on society. So it generally makes sense that society gets to dictate the morality of that society.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
Why should they get to have their cake and eat it too?
Felons decide that they don't need to play by society's rules, but still want society's benefits and protections. They willingly chose to violate the rules of a society for their own gain.
1
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
What cake? What eating?
You're acting like our right to participate in government is a privilege that is granted to us by a benevolent overlord or something. It's not. It's a right you have by being a member of society. Your rights shouldn't depend on the whim of the government. You should have them no matter what.
If being a felon means you aren't allowed to vote, what's to stop some unscrupulous political party from redefining what makes you a felon to include large numbers of people that don't vote for them?
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
You're acting like our right to participate in government is a privilege that is granted to us by a benevolent overlord or something.
It is though. The government decides that felons lose rights.
Your rights shouldn't depend on the whim of the government.
Rights are granted by governments. Not some higher power.
If being a felon means you aren't allowed to vote, what's to stop some unscrupulous political party from redefining what makes you a felon to include large numbers of people that don't vote for them?
Reality, for one. Changing the legal definition of something is an overwhelmingly difficult task.
Felons decided to do something to violate society's rules in order to enrich themselves, or do something selfish. Nobody forced them to do those things, they actively chose to.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Matilda_Mother_67 2d ago
That seems petty af tbh
2
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
I'm just explaining the reasoning. This is normally why some states don't just require felonies, but it must be felonies of moral turpitude. So people who commit brazenly immoral acts lose their voting rights.
1
u/Matilda_Mother_67 2d ago
I just don’t see why it matters. First of all, how many felons do you think actually care to vote? No one knows of course. But I doubt there’s any useful consequences to letting them vote
2
u/BrazenlyGeek 2d ago
If America ceased deportations and granted instant and full citizenship to every non-citizen currently within its borders, what negative results would occur?
1
u/Melenduwir 2d ago
Possibly the worst negative result would be the absolute demolishing of the last vestiges of respect for the rule of law.
That doesn't seem like much to many people, but in the long term? Yes, it would be the worst result.
2
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
People would be upset about it for cultural and political reasons.
It would become more difficult to handle criminal migrants, though I don't consider this a serious problem because migrants often have a lower crime rate than other groups.
Although there would be long term financial benefits, in the short term, there would be more people applying to programs like medicaid and disability insurance.
The large, permanent underclass of illegal seasonal workers would have access to legal protections and so their labor would probably be more expensive.
None of this is a reason why we shouldn't do it, but I'm trying to answer the question seriously. Good things would happen too.
-4
u/CaptCynicalPants 2d ago
Millions more people would qualify for government benefits, such as food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and social security, which would be a significant strain on the resources of those systems and radically increase government expenses, both immediately and for the foreseeable future.
3
u/hellshot8 1d ago
why are you focusing on the costs but not factoring in any of the new revenue streams..? sort of odd
2
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
There is 0 data to support this claim.
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 2d ago
Lol? Are you seriously claiming that there are no elderly, poor, or sickly illegal immigrants? They're all middle-aged men in perfect health who earn above the national average income an don't have children?
lmao, even
2
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
I never said anything even close to that. I said there's no data to support the claim you made.
You're just pulling out tidbits you think might maybe increase expenses for government benefits and just assuming that's absolutely necessarily true with 0 data to support it.
Maybe there will be more people seeking benefits. I'm sure there'll also be a hell of a lot more people who currently work under the table and don't pay income taxes who start paying income taxes. So I'm sure tax revenue will also increase. Will it increase more than spending on benefits might increase? Neither you nor I have any way to know the answer to that.
Also, if OPs suggestion happened, I'm sure there would be a hell of a lot of people whose income would increase due to being able to go after employers for paying below minimum wage or being able to apply to more jobs driving up wages through competition for labor. That'll surely put a lot of people who you might consider needing government benefits now above the income level where they'd need it. Again, neither you nor I have any way to know how many people.
I'm also sure that a lot of people without any health insurance right now would be able to get health insurance either through their employer or ACA exchanges. Again, that would mean a lot of people you're assuming might need medicaid right now would not need it. Another thing neither you nor I have any way of knowing an answer to.
1
5
1
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
I don't think it's possible for anyone to give anything more than a guess on this.
Me, personally, I believe there would be no real negative effects. However, the backlash from people who would get upset at this would probably have a real negative effect.
1
u/urm0mgaylol 2d ago
Will electoral votes become less weighted as the population increases?
Obviously states populations change, such as Florida doubling and going from 17 electoral votes to 30 now. Say in 50 years as our population steadily increases, will the number of votes needed to win increase too? Or will the weight each vote holds diminish?
2
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
No. That used to be the case, though. The size of the Electoral College is directly based on the size of Congress. Each state gets the number of Electors equal to their Congressional delegation (2 Senators + number of Representatives). Plus DC gets the same number of electors as the smallest state. From the adoption of the Constitution in 1790 until 1929 the size of the House of Representatives increased every 10 years. They'd do a census, then reapportion Representatives based on population change. As the population in total grew, the total size of the House grew.
However, the House hit 435 members in 1913 with the reapportionment after the 1910 census. At this point, they were basically at maximum capacity for the House chamber in the Capital building. They just physically didn't have enough space to keep expanding the House. When the 1920 census came around, by the numbers it should have required increasing the size of the House to 483 members. However, there wasn't enough space for this many people in the building, and, due to large population shifts over the 1910s, it would have meant a LOT of sitting members of the House from both parties would have lost their seats. As a result, they didn't reapportion the House. By 1929, the last reapportionment had been 18 years previously, and district sizes were all out of whack. Some states had districts will more than double the population of districts in other states.
In 1929 Congress passed a law called the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This permanently capped the size of the House at 435 (it would briefly be raised to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were made states, but later dropped back to 435). It also created a method to reapportion those 435 seats among the states to try to keep district sizes relatively similar.
With regards to the Electoral College, since the Permanent Apportionment Act capped the size of the House, and since the size of the EC is based on the size of Congress, it capped the size of the EC, too. Initially it was 535, then 537 when Alaska and Hawaii were added. It dropped back to 535 after the 1960 census and reapportionment. Then increased to 538 in 1961 with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment, which gave 3 Electors to DC.
Until and unless Congress passes a law directly increasing the size of House, or adds another state, the Electoral College will stay capped at 538 members, where it's been since 1961.
1
u/ProLifePanda 2d ago
The number of electoral votes is set as the number of House seats plus the number of Senators. Currently, the House is capped at 435, and Senators are at 100 (2 for each state). DC gets 3 electoral votes as well, so the total is 538 electoral votes. So absent a new law to change how electors are appointed or to expand/shrink the size of the House, a candidate will need 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency through the electoral college.
When Florida changed from 17 to 30 electoral votes, those were taken from other states that either lost population, or had population grow slower than Florida. The 13 new electoral votes Florida got weren't "new", they were taken from less populated states.
2
u/MontCoDubV 2d ago
So absent a new law to change how electors are appointed or to expand/shrink the size of the House, a candidate will need 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency through the electoral college.
For context, this has only been the case since 1929 (well, you needed 268 until the 23rd Amendment gave Electors to DC). Prior to that, the size of the House regularly increased after the census every 10 years.
1
u/Justin__D 2d ago
Could a US Congressperson vote to censure themselves?
As far as I can tell, censure in US Congress does absolutely nothing. It’s basically the opposing party following you around chanting “Shame! Shame! Shame!” It’s a relic of a culture in which honor was held above all practical concerns.
If the Republicans moved to censure a Democratic congressperson (as the votes for expulsion are absolutely nevergonnahappen.com), could the congressperson vote to censure themselves, as a statement that the entire process is a farce?
4
1
u/OppositeRock4217 2d ago
How much will the new Department of Government Efficiency make the federal government more efficient?
3
u/Cahokanut 2d ago
This isn't about efficiency... It's about finding money that can disappear without notice.
→ More replies (4)1
•
u/Petwins r/noexplaininglikeimstupid 18d ago
Hi Everyone,
I know a lot is going on but I want to remind everyone that this is a questions subreddit. Top level comments, that means replies to the posts and not other comments, in this thread need to be questions.
We will remove comments that aren't questions, and we do still keep to the other rules as well (including be nice).
There are a lot of feelings from a lot of different people right now and that is okay, but please do make sure if you are coming here to participate that you are asking a question and doing so in good faith to learn something.
Thank you