Was going through some March national polling and the wealth-tax numbers are bigger than I expected for something usually framed as a left-vs-right fight: 73% said it would be fair to raise wealth taxes on billionaires, with most of that "strongly agree," and 67% said the same about large corporations. Pair that with only 29% believing Social Security will still be around in 40 years, and you get a picture of people who are both pro-redistribution and pessimistic that the safety net will hold. Is "tax the billionaires" actually a consensus position now, or does support collapse once you get specific about how?

Let’s imagine Congress hired you as a consultant to help them tidy up any Constitutional problems. They are willing to vote for whatever you suggest as long as they think there’d be a ghost of a chance it’d be ratified (so no dissolving the Senate). What would you suggest?

I want to pose a serious question that I suspect a lot of people are thinking but don’t want to say out loud.
The National Mall festivities were reportedly evacuated due to weather concerns, causing hours of delays to the 250th anniversary events. Yet from where I was, the weather appeared to consist of rain and some thunder, not an obvious public safety emergency.

Was this genuinely about public safety, or are we at least allowed to question whether political optics played a role? Specifically, if attendance numbers were lower than anticipated, is it unreasonable to ask whether the evacuation and subsequent disruption provided a convenient narrative shift away from turnout?
To be clear, I’m not claiming that’s what happened. I’m asking whether it’s fair to discuss the possibility, or whether we’ve reached a point where even questioning official explanations is considered out of bounds.
If there were specific weather alerts, lightning strikes, or other imminent dangers that justified the evacuation, I’d genuinely like to see them. Otherwise, what evidence convinces you that this was solely a safety decision?

Like the title says, Republicans could have easily become the party of renewable energy or getting us off fossil fuels with the position of saying we were doing it to stimulate the economy, create jobs here in this country, build new industries, etc. The lane is completely open and has been. So why haven't they taken that approach?

I think modern democracy would better reflect public will if it worked as a continuously updated system where citizens can adjust their policy preferences over time, rather than only expressing them every few years through elections.

The current system forces people to bundle hundreds of issues into a single vote for a party, which often means their actual views on individual policies are only partially represented.

A better model, in my view, would allow citizens to maintain an ongoing, secure policy profile that reflects their current positions. This would not require constant engagement, but would allow people to update their views whenever they choose.

Under this approach, key policy areas could include things like:

• nuclear energy expansion
• tax levels (increase/decrease / maintain)
• carbon pricing approaches
• immigration targets
• spending priorities such as healthcare, housing, defence, education, and debt

The key advantage is that it separates policy preferences from election cycles, allowing governments and policymakers to see a more accurate, real-time distribution of public opinion across issues.

A necessary feature: searchability and filtering

One major challenge would be scale. A system like this could easily contain thousands of policy questions.

To make it usable, it would need to function like a searchable interface rather than a static questionnaire. Citizens could:

• Search topics like “housing,” “taxes,” or “climate”
• follow issues they care about
• Update only the relevant sections of their profile when needed
• Ignore topics they don’t engage with

In my view, the goal should not be constant participation, but fast and optional updating—similar to editing preferences in a profile rather than completing a survey.

Handling question framing bias

One of the biggest weaknesses in any such system is who controls the wording of questions.

If a single institution writes them, it could heavily shape outcomes through framing.

A better approach would be to allow multiple political actors (for example, registered parties or institutions) to submit their own versions of the same issue.

For example, on carbon pricing:

• “Should Canada eliminate the carbon tax to reduce the cost of living?”
• “Should Canada maintain carbon pricing to reduce emissions?”
• “Should Canada replace the carbon tax with an alternative system?”

All versions would remain visible, and citizens could choose which ones to answer. This would make framing differences explicit rather than hidden.

Why I think this increases democratic responsiveness

In the current system, citizens must accept a bundled set of policies when they vote, even if they strongly disagree with parts of it.

A continuous system would allow more granular expression of preferences, where policy positions are not locked in for years at a time.

This could also reduce the gap between election outcomes and actual public opinion shifts that occur between elections.

The role of the government would still be necessary

Even with continuous feedback, representative government would still matter.

Parliament and elected officials would still need to:

• negotiate and compromise
• Respond to emergencies
• implement policy
• make decisions under uncertainty

However, they would operate with a continuously updated understanding of public preferences rather than relying primarily on election snapshots.

Key challenges

There are still serious issues that would need to be addressed:

• strong security and identity verification
• question overload or redundancy across actors
• uneven participation (some citizens more engaged than others)
• conflicting preferences (e.g., lower taxes and higher spending)
• need for strong filtering, categorization, and search tools

Final view

Overall, I believe democracy should evolve toward something more continuous and data-driven, where citizen preferences are not limited to periodic elections but are expressed in an ongoing, searchable system.

This would not eliminate representation, but it could make it significantly more responsive and reflective of real-time public opinion.

I’m not claiming this is fully workable as-is, but I do think it’s worth seriously reconsidering whether election-only democracy is still the best interface between citizens and government in a digital era.

Tibet needs the world’s support. As a Tibetan, this news is difficult to process, and I’m trying to bring more awareness to the situation.
On July 2, 2026, a 52-year-old Tibetan man — named by exile media as activist Lobga Rangzen — died after setting himself on fire outside UN headquarters in New York while holding a Tibetan flag and appealing for Tibetan independence. This man gave his life to draw attention to Tibet’s situation, and I think that deserves to be taken seriously.
The act came a day after China’s new “Ethnic Unity Law” took effect, pushing a unified national identity onto the country’s ethnic minorities and tightening Chinese-language requirements — a move Tibetan and human rights groups warn accelerates forced assimilation. Beijing insists Tibet has been Chinese territory since the 1200s and has ruled the region since 1951, calling it a “peaceful liberation.” Tibetan exile groups and rights organizations instead describe decades of occupation and repression. This is part of a longer pattern: Tibetans have used self-immolation as a form of protest for over 15 years, with more than 150 recorded cases since 2009.

I want to be clear this wasn’t about his state of mind — I watched his personal video posted on Instagram, and it was a deliberate political statement, not a personal crisis.
Still, this topic can be heavy for some readers. If anything here affects you personally, the 988 Lifeline is there (US, call or text). Outside the US, Befrienders Worldwide can help you find a local crisis line.

Sources (search these if you’d like to verify): The Guardian (July 3, 2026), CNN, Amnesty International statement, Tibet.net, Students for a Free Tibet and Tibetan Youth Congress on instagram.

Open question for discussion: does an event like this actually shift international pressure on China, or does it get absorbed into the news cycle without consequence?

The Democrats need new blood and someone to be more vocal and take a more aggressive stance in the fight against Republican fascism. Jeffries has his moments but he is not the man for this challenge. We need a fighter. Who do you want to see lead the charge?

My only rule: Has to be a current elected member of the House.

Names I like:

* AOC

* Jamie Raskin

* Ted Lieu

* Ro Khanna

* Pramila Jayapal

*Rashida Tlaib

I know it's has been a while, but I’ve been thinking about the most recent government shutdown standoffs in the U.S. and how the negotiation dynamics play out.

It often seems like the side more concerned about immediate economic disruption has a stronger incentive to compromise first, since a prolonged shutdown has real costs for the broader economy. That can create a situation where willingness to “absorb pain” becomes a form of leverage.

A Canadian analogy I had in mind: if a major cross-border infrastructure issue (like the Gordie Howe International Bridge opening being delayed) created economic pressure, it’s hard to imagine Canada responding by escalating in a way that further disrupts trade flows (for example restricting traffic on the Ambassador Bridge), because the economic spillover would likely be too costly for both sides.

Is this a fair way to think about shutdown negotiations in the U.S.? And if one side is consistently more sensitive to economic disruption, does that systematically affect bargaining power over time?

I've been thinking about an alternative to people needing to work overtime or multiple jobs just to meet a basic living standard, and wanted to hear what people think.

Suppose a full-time employee (40 hours per week) earns less than a locally defined livable wage.

Rather than expecting them to work additional hours, the government would pay the employee the difference so they receive a livable income. However, the government would also track those payments by employer and later recover the cost through an employer-specific tax.

The intended incentives would be:

• Workers receive a livable income without delay.
• Employers who rely on paying below a livable wage still bear the financial responsibility.
• Taxpayers aren't permanently subsidizing low wages.
• Employers already paying a livable wage wouldn't face the additional tax.
• Workers would be less dependent on overtime or second jobs to make ends meet, which could potentially free up some work hours for people who are unemployed or underemployed.

What economic effects would you expect? Would this create better incentives than increasing the minimum wage, or would it introduce new problems such as reduced hiring, increased automation, administrative complexity, or unintended distortions in the labour market?

One of the goals would be to make a standard 40-hour workweek sufficient to meet a basic living standard while reducing the need for overtime simply to earn enough to live.

I am interested in hearing perspectives on the strategic implications of a potential shift in the US-Israel security relationship.

Many analyses focus on the immediate regional impacts, but I’m looking for a broader discussion on how such a move might affect global power dynamics. Specifically:
Regional Stability: How would a withdrawal of US security guarantees influence the balance of power, particularly regarding Iran and existing regional alliances (e.g., the Abraham Accords)?
Strategic Autonomy: Would this likely force Israel to pivot toward other major powers, or would it lead to a more unilateral and "survival-oriented" security posture?
US Global Credibility: How might other US allies, such as those in NATO or the Indo-Pacific, interpret a significant decoupling from such a long-standing strategic partner?

I would appreciate responses that focus on geopolitical frameworks and historical precedents rather than partisan politics.

This investigation raises a policy question about accountability, not just destruction. EU taxpayers funded hospitals, desalination plants, schools and other civilian infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank that EUobserver reports were later bombed, bulldozed or seized by Israel, with no repayment to the EU.

The key issue is incentives: if Brussels limits itself to diplomatic letters while continuing normal relations, what stops the same pattern from repeating during future reconstruction?

It also puts EU governments in a difficult position — funding Palestinian infrastructure, then absorbing the cost when it is destroyed, without imposing financial or political consequences.

I’ve moved to Colorado in the past year and I’ve been acquiring all of the items I need to get a state ID, unfortunately I cannot do such things because I don’t have access to my birth certificate or a passport(which you need a birth certificate to get). So I tried to get my birth certificate online, but it costs between $70 to $150 dollars to get it from the website I was provided by the Colorado DMV. (Don’t try to tell me that’s wrong I looked this morning.)

Im sure there are loads of people out there in the same position as me, who cannot vote or use the ID for other things because they can’t afford a replacement birth certificate. Like impoverished people or the unhoused. Which by definition makes it a poll tax. I know people on the right are going to say “well that’s just a normal adult responsibility.” But let me raise you this situation, I am a broke college student and my grocery bill has doubled from 40 dollars every two weeks to almost 100 dollars every two weeks following the start of the war in Iran. Which means I either have to choose between groceries, an essential thing to staying alive, or drop a large portion of my income to get a birth certificate. Meaning I’d have to either pay a ton of money to have the right to vote or not have the right to vote at all.

Having to pay money for the ability to vote makes this a poll tax. Honestly the want to vote isn’t even the main reason I need a State ID, but I don’t think that people who cannot afford to pay for the ID requirements like myself should be bared from voting just because they can’t get a birth certificate. On top of that there are so many study’s that show voter fraud isn’t an actual problem in the US.

Would you really rather the United States have less voter turnout than it’s already abysmal numbers because someone can’t afford to vote? Or would you let people have the opportunity to vote because it’s their right to do so? This is America is it not.

Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidates Trump's Executive Order that he issued on the first day of his second term seeking to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and of people studying, working or visiting the U.S. on time-limited visas.

Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Pp. 2–26.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals [agreed that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.] Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with that conclusion but said Trump’s executive order is invalid because it violates a federal statute.

Justice Kavanaugh more specifically noted: The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully disagree with the Court’s constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch outright reject the notion that birthright is automatically conferred by birth regardless on the 14th Amendment Provision. They focused on the provision attributing in part a remedy for Black slavery or racial context, raising also the issue of "tourist birth rate."

The dissenting justices maintained that they do not accept the century‑long interpretation that birthright citizenship is automatic. Instead, they appear to favor a narrow reading of the Citizenship Clause, tying citizenship to parental domicile and allegiance, birth tourists and rejection of mediaeval interpretation of history.

Does this decision [more like 5 to 4] raise concerns about viability of birthright citizenship?

25-365 Trump v. Barbara (06/30/2026)

The agreement appears to place responsibility for disarming Hezbollah on the Lebanese Armed Forces. But isn’t that simply shifting Israel’s Hezbollah problem onto the Lebanese state?

The LAF is a professional military, but Hezbollah has spent decades building a parallel military structure and has often been regarded as better armed, better trained in irregular warfare, and politically entrenched. Many analysts have questioned whether the army can realistically disarm Hezbollah by force without risking a wider internal conflict.

If Hezbollah refuses to disarm, as it has publicly indicated, and the government tries to enforce the agreement, doesn’t that create the conditions for another Lebanese civil war? On the other hand, if the army doesn’t enforce it, then what mechanism actually makes this agreement work?

Interested to hear different perspectives.

I'm aware that birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution, and heard that Trump attempted to abolish it somehow, but was ruled unconstotutional by the Supreme Court. My mother, who supports Trump, told me that she heard Trump has another way to remove birthright citizenship. I don't know much about U.S. politics, but if the SC ruled that his changes were against the Constitution, it should not be possible. Unless if an amendment was made to the Constitution, but that seems unlikely because it's very difficult to amend. Realistically, is there any way Trump could remove birthright citizenship somehow without amending the Constitution?

Thanks :)

Medicare for all is the most popular solution to rising healthcare costs and the uninsured rate in the US. Multiple versions have been introduced by progressives in the house and senate, but they never made it far.

However, seeing the dissatisfaction with the Republicans in power and the progressive wave in Democratic primaries that's been happening in recent months (Zohran winning the NYC mayor race, Platner winning the Maine primary, DSA wins in New York and Pennsylvania), healthcare looks set to be a massive issue for 2028.

The question, in my view, isn't necessarily "can we pay for Medicare for all?", because M4A saves money compared to our current system, but more so if it would be more efficient to adopt a different kind of system instead.

For instance, in order to finance M4A, around $3 trillion would need to be raised per year. This can be done through payroll taxes, shifting already existent expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and CHIP, cutting money from the military, eliminating tax breaks for medical expenses (since all expenses will theoretically be covered), increasing corporate taxes, etc.

As you can see, this is a significant overhaul to the current tax system, and they could, in theory, support a M4A program. However, the devil is in the details. How much do we raise the payroll taxes by? Would this tax increase overburden the uninsured, who already don't have health insurance for financial reasons?

Under a multi payer system like what Germany has, however, the demand for constant revenue stream is a lot less burdensome. It could only need $1 Trillion per year instead of $3 Trillion per year, for example.

Let's say we replace the ACA with a plan very similar to M4A: no copays, no deductibles, care is free at the point of service, etc., but only those making less than 450% the federal poverty line are eligible. It's a lot easier to find ways of funding that through taxes.

The payroll tax won't need to be as high, an increase in corporate taxes and re-allocating ACA funds would cover a much higher percentage of the budget compared to M4A, and the uninsured rate would likely be reduced significantly, since the plan will automatically enroll those in lower income brackets.

So what do you all think? Should we adopt M4A or something closer to Germany's multi payer system?

The Supreme Court just said that the president can remove officials from independent agencies like the FTC without the consent of Congress. Trump himself said, “Today’s Historic Slaughter Decision by the Supreme Court is the Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years.”

Of course, this comes after the court has said the president cannot be held accountable for illegal acts. Seems he can also unilaterally spend money, not spend money allocated by Congress, shutter entire agencies, etc.

How should the next non-Republican president use this power?

The Constitution gives the House the sole power of Impeachment, and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, so would this mean that there is no way for a court to review an impeachment, even if it was for a blatantly unjust reason?

Is there a way that the 14th amendment could be used to invalidate an impeachment?

Perhaps "sole power of impeachment" could be interpreted narrowly to mean that only the House can initiate an impeachment, but a court could still stop an "unconstitutional" impeachment?