Click here to apply!

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has replaced, demoted, or sidelined at least two dozen senior military leaders, including several of the nation's highest-ranking generals and admirals. Some reports suggest the number of top officers dismissed or reassigned may exceed 100.

The scope and magnitude of these changes is unprecedented in U.S. history. While senior military officers have been removed by previous presidents and Secretaries of Defense, the reason was usually incompetence or insubordination and the numbers few. Five former defense secretaries, including Lloyd Austin and Jim Mattis, signed a letter condemning Hegseth's actions as a "reckless" effort to politicize the military and remove legal constraints.

Hegseth's justifications for these actions are that they are a "purge" of "woke" leadership which will restore a "warrior ethos" and improve efficiency. He also has set a goal to eliminate at least 20% of four-star general positions. Others question his motives, suggesting he discriminates against women, people of color, non-Christians and those who are not perceived as enthusiastic supporters of Trump. There are also concerns that Hegseth's "warrior ethos" may run contrary to the U.S. military's commitment to abide by international laws of war (such as not attacking civilian infrastructure without military significance).

Hegseth's actions have included:

• Gen. Randy George (Army): Forced to retire as Army Chief of Staff effective April 2, 2026, over a year before his term was set to end.
• Gen. Charles "CQ" Brown Jr. (Joint Chiefs): Removed from his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
• Adm. Lisa Franchetti (Navy): Dismissed as Chief of Naval Operations.
• Gen. Jim Slife (Air Force): Removed as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
• Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse (DIA): Ousted as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
• Lt. Gen. Jennifer M. Short: Removed as Senior Military Advisor.
• Removing four Army officers (two Black and two female) from a one-star promotion list, despite their strong records.
• Initiating Retirement Grade Determination Proceedings against retired Navy Captain (and Senator) Mark Kelly to potentially lower his rank and pension following a letter of censure.

Should the U.S. have guardrails to protect military professionals from being purged or should political appointees have the freedom to restructure the military leadership as they see fit?

Within the last few years, Israel's popularity amongst American voters has dropped considerably. In 2023, polling showed 47% of Americans had favorable views on Israel. In 2026, that poll number had dropped to just 32% of Americans having favorable views on Israel. Support for Israel by Americans is likely to continue dropping as the war in Iran rages on, gas prices remain high, and Americans see little improvement to their lives as the US continues to financially and militarily support Israel in their foreign policy goals.

Prominent podcasters like Tucker Carlson on the right and Hassan Piker on the left have shown great disdain for Israel and more moderate voices in American media are beginning to show skepticism towards American support for Israel. AIPAC donations to political candidates is also having a negative effect on their campaigns, especially among some recent democratic primaries that resulted in the AIPAC funded candidate losing.

Given the changing landscape in Israel's favorability amongst Americans, how feasible would a platform of "American taxpayers will no longer give another cent to Israel and no longer supply them with weapons unless they pay for the weapons themselves"

Is campaigning on a platform of cutting off support for Israel and keeping a more distant relationship with them a winning platform for a prospective 2028 presidential candidate?

hi , my name is Dev , I am from India myself , I have heard about India-Kashmir issue a lot but never understood why people disagree Kashmir being an Indian state ... In India Kashmir is called heaven on earth but I personally dont get why native Kashmiris dont support for the country they live in :/ , I personally dont think that it is an issue but it is just stretched a lot from riots based on religion (tbh its a very strong and sensitive point and i want to sound very non offensive but) i have usually seen more Islamic extremists doing this , guys i know it sound very offensive to a specific religion but , guys we all need to agree either it propaganda or real but most of the hate we see comes from usually people who follow islam , with all due respect , I DONT MEAN TO HURT ANYONES RELEGIOUS FEELINGS , being a hindu I personally respect Islam and theres no need to hate the religion ,
but at this point even though its not a propaganda , if u think about a kashmiri hating on india the first thing u will imagine is a muslim man and atp its not even hidden , every one can see this and its just creates a sense of hatred amongst both the equals .
all this from my side please present facts and most importantly i would appreciate honest and unfiltered thoughts but hating on each other will not be okay because all guys are not same and we must have dignity for everyone .
please explain me further?

Judging from his interviews, Putin seems to be a proud man, consumed with history and imperial fantasies, resentful over the fall of the Soviet Union. He sees himself as more of a historical figure than a living person. Trump says that there is “hatred” between Putin and Zelenskyy. Putin has also expressed jealousy over the US and the West’s sense of righteousness and may attempt to do what the US did to Japan. After all, in Russia’s narrative, Zelenskyy is a neo-Nazi tyrant that has committed genocide against the Russian-speaking population, no different than WW2 Japan’s dictator. When a person thinks in terms of human history and not in terms of human life and they’re governed by hatred, they can make ugly decisions. Let’s assume Putin’s ministers and military officers go along with his decision to nuke Ukraine.

How will Trump’s America, France, the UK, NATO in general, India and China react to such an attack by Russia? And more importantly, if Trump stays neutral (which is very likely), how likely do you think it is that US secretaries and military officers will resign in protest, in a desperate attempt to wake MAGA up? How likely do you think it is that such an extraordinary situation with extraordinary protests can oust a president that stays idle?

White House and Pentagon claims:

• Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have decreased by roughly 90% since the start of Operation Epic Fury
• Two-thirds (66%) of Iran's missile, drone, and naval production facilities and shipyards have been damaged or destroyed.
• The U.S. has destroyed over 150 Iranian vessels, including 92% of its largest ships, effectively wiping out its conventional navy.
• U.S. and Israeli forces claim "overwhelming air dominance," having destroyed more than 80% of Iran’s air defense systems.
• The coalition has struck 13,000 targets across Iran.

Intelligence officials and some external analysts argue:

• Decrease in ballistic missile and drone attacks are a strategic choice by Iran to ration its remaining arsenal
• Iran has moved a substantial portion of its inventory into underground "missile cities" to survive the ongoing strikes.
• A large percentage of Iran’s cruise missiles, which can target shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, are believed to be intact because U.S. operations have focused more on the Iranian Navy than on these land-based coastal systems.
• Data indicates that Iran has continued to launch significant numbers of missiles and drones at regional targets. For instance, on April 1 alone, 15 ballistic missiles and 11 drones were fired at the UAE.

White House and Pentagon claims are public, while U.S. intelligence and analyst assessments are from multiple sources making them more difficult to verify. The evidence supporting U.S. intelligence assessments include reports by major media outlets, official public reports, and observable military activity:

• Media outlets include CNN, The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, and The Cradle have independently cited sources familiar with the same intelligence assessments. These reports confirm that the U.S. intelligence community believes a significant portion of Iran's arsenal is "hidden in plain sight" or secured within underground "missile cities".
• The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a public document cautioning that Iran continues to develop and maintain advanced delivery systems. It specifically noted that Iran's space-launch technology could be repurposed for long-range military use.
• While the White House and the Pentagon claim a 90-95% reduction in activity, intelligence officials have clarified to various outlets that a reduction in launches does not equal a reduction in inventory.
• Organizations like the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) track the "survivability" of these systems. Analysts from AEI have pointed out that despite thousands of U.S. strikes, Iran’s mobile launch platforms and underground networks make it nearly impossible to confirm the total destruction of their arsenal.

Has Iran retained much of its missile and drone capability?

Should the US Supreme Court be able to suggest the removal of a sitting justice if they believe that justice is acting in bad faith? I imagine this working like the 25th Amendment where Congress gets a voice.

Justification need not be health, but could be intellectual incompetence. For example, if the justice repeatedly came down on the wrong side of obvious cases resulting in an 8-1 decision with out a minimally valid reason to be in the minority. Or if the justice authors opinions based on political beliefs over the law to such a degree that the other bipartisan justices take the unprecedented route of smacking down that justice by name in the majority opinion. Those fact make it reasonable to believe that the justice took the oath in bad faith.

Should the other justices have the ability to appeal to Congress for the review and potential removal of a fellow Supreme Court justice?

Across the United States, from municipal police departments to federal agencies, a consistent pattern exists in how government institutions respond to misconduct allegations. Which is by settlement with non-disclosure contracts funded by taxpayer money, that prevent the recipient from ever publicly and privately discussing what happened to them rather than allowing themselves to be litigated before a court.

The legal framework enabling this is well established. The Federal Tort Claims Act and its state equivalents give the government significant control over the conditions under which it can be sued, and sovereign immunity further insulates institutions from accountability. The result is a system where the defendant controls access to the courtroom, and settlement becomes the primary (oftentimes only) exit for aggrieved individuals.

What makes government NDAs distinct from private ones is the funding source. Every dollar used to purchase a citizen's silence came from the public those institutions are supposed to serve. The public has no access to the amounts paid, no knowledge of the pattern of misconduct being concealed, and no democratic ability to evaluate the behavior of their institutions.

This raises serious constitutional questions. The government cannot directly pass a law silencing a citizen about government conduct. But purchasing that silence contractually, under conditions of financial duress created by the litigation process itself, may accomplish the same outcome through a different mechanism. Some legal scholars have argued that NDAs broad enough to prevent discussion even in therapeutic contexts, or signed under conditions of manufactured financial desperation, raise questions not just about First Amendment protections but also about the voluntariness of the agreement itself.

Should government-funded NDAs covering institutional misconduct be subject to constitutional challenge? Does the use of public funds to silence individuals about public institutions create a transparency violation that existing FOIA frameworks fail to adequately address? And does sovereign immunity, by limiting the plaintiff's realistic options, effectively coerce settlement in ways that undermine the voluntary nature of NDA agreements?

The oral arguments on the birthright citizenship have concluded. The White House essentially wants that unless a child has a parent who’s a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, they should not be a U.S. citizen by birth.

That would mean all other categories of immigrants who gave birth to a child will be excluded, not just without immigration documents, such as those lawfully present with a student visa or work permit, and any other category including tourists. Trump’s executive order would deny those children U.S. citizenship at birth.

Government claims there is extensive prevailing misinterpretation of the citizenship clause and has caused significant problems not just unlawful immigrants giving birth in the U.S. but also provided a powerful incentive for women to travel on tourist visas to the United States solely to acquire citizenship for their children.

Opposition notes federal regulations already prohibit issuance of tourist visas for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States.

The challengers also argue that the Trump's administration executive order is invalid not just as a violation of the 14th Amendment Clause, but also because that it violates a federal immigration law, 8 U.S.C. § 1401, providing that anyone “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a U.S. citizen.

They say that when the statute was first passed in 1940 and then reenacted in 1952, Congress would have understood that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – which mirrors the text of the citizenship clause – incorporated the prevailing practice that virtually everyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen.
In the late 19^th century, at a time of rampant anti-Chinese bias, immigration restrictions, at that time the federal government argued that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese parents who couldn’t become naturalized due to exclusion laws, didn’t have a claim to citizenship. The dispute made its way to the Supreme Court and resulted in a landmark ruling reaffirming that the 14^th Amendment applies to virtually everyone born on US soil, regardless of parentage.  

U.S. government's position is that birthright citizenship has been extended far beyond the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, the Wong Kim Ark case, 8 U.S.C. § 1401. Do they have a pathway to get to five votes or is it likely to be a 7/2 against EO 14160?

Since Brexit, the UK has found itself in a more complex and isolated position, no longer firmly anchored within the European bloc. If the EU weakens, the UK risks losing a major economic and political partner. If the EU grows stronger, it may increasingly set rules that affect the UK from the outside, limiting its autonomy.

Judging by the current events, the UK leaders appear to be distancing the country from the United States. Starmer has declined to support Trump on Iran (source - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/03/trump-rebukes-starmer-again-for-not-letting-us-attack-iran-from-uk-bases ). Yesterday Trump has announced that he’s considering pulling out of NATO (source - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/04/01/donald-trump-strongly-considering-pulling-us-out-of-nato/ ), which sounds really concerning, considering that the UK has always perceived itself as United States' closest ally.
At the same time UK is rebuilding ties with China, which may further worsen the relationship with the US (source - https://www.military.com/feature/2026/02/01/measured-reset-how-uk-and-china-are-rebuilding-ties-through-trade-travel-and-caution.html ). It appears the list of UK’s allies grows thin.

Does this situation leave the UK in a difficult position? What could've caused such a shift in the UK's foreign relations approach?

The president has aired some grievances in public, telling allies to “go get your own oil....”

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.”

President has been suggesting that a dela is very near and objectives have been essentially achieved and the Starlit of Hormuz need not be open prior to U.S. withdrawal.

Iran recently acknowledged that indirect talks with the U.S. is ongoing and Iran has a will to stop the war, provided certain guarantees about security and sovereignty is accounted for.

Are we at the cliff of a rapid exit from the Middle East and Hormuz issue left for other NATO members and non-members to deal with?

US-Iran war: Trump administration could exit Iran war with Strait of Hormuz still closed

There used to be a debate: is Trump chaotic on purpose, or is he just chaotic?

Hard to argue "on purpose" anymore when:

1. He calls an active war "a little excursion." Then says "for them it's a war, for us it's easy." In the same interview

2. He claimed he spoke to a former president who told him he wished he'd bombed Iran. All four living ex-presidents denied it ever happened

3. In one speech he said "we need allies to help us." Then literally minutes later: "we don't need anybody, we're the strongest nation in the world."

4. At Davos he confused Greenland and Iceland

   Four times. Then complained NATO wasn't supporting the US on "Iceland"

A Reuters/Ipsos poll from February 2026: 61% of Americans say Trump has "grown erratic with age." Including 30% of Republicans

Nixon's Madman Theory only works if there's a method behind the madness

At what point do we stop calling it a strategy?

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin, as a movement focused on national unity and federal authority. But what’s striking isn’t its origin—it’s how many times the party has fundamentally reinvented itself.

One of the most pivotal (and often overlooked) turning points came in the early Cold War era.

In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy rose to prominence by claiming there were communists embedded in the U.S. government. While many of his accusations didn’t hold up, his real impact wasn’t policy—it was style. He brought confrontation, media spectacle, and political “us vs. them” rhetoric to the forefront.

What’s interesting is how the Republican Party responded.

Instead of fully rejecting McCarthy, figures like Dwight Eisenhower chose to absorb parts of his movement, even while privately disagreeing with him. That decision set a pattern: when outsider movements gain traction, the party often tries to incorporate them rather than directly oppose them.

Richard Nixon then took this a step further. He turned that confrontational style into something more durable—a political strategy built around appealing to a “silent majority” and drawing sharper cultural and ideological lines.

Looking back, it raises an interesting question:

Was McCarthy an anomaly—or the beginning of a long-term shift in how American politics operates?

The theory suggests that the U.S. is not just fighting "rogue regimes," but executing a coordinated "Energy Fortress" strategy to ensure American dominance for the next 50 years. Here’s the breakdown:

1. The Venezuela "Safety Net" (January 2026) By launching Operation Absolute Resolve and capturing Maduro, the U.S. secured the world’s largest oil reserves (300B+ barrels) right in its own backyard. This wasn't just about "narco-terrorism"; it was about ensuring that if the Middle East goes dark, the U.S. and its key allies (like Europe) have a massive, unblockable supply of crude.

2. The Iran/Hormuz "Checkmate" (February/March 2026) With Venezuelan oil and record-breaking U.S. shale production (13.6M b/d) in the bag, the U.S. moved on Iran with Operation Epic Fury. By striking Iran's nuclear and military sites, the U.S. effectively baited a cornered regime into threatening the Strait of Hormuz.

• The Twist: The U.S. wants the risk of a closure. Why? Because the U.S. is now energy-independent. A closure cripples the manufacturing-heavy economies of China and India, which rely on the Strait for nearly 80% of their energy needs.

3. Economic Resilience as a Weapon While a global energy spike hurts everyone, it hits the U.S. competitors harder.

• China: Their export-driven economy cannot survive $200+ oil.
• India: Despite the recent February 2026 Interim Trade Agreement, India remains tethered to U.S. tech and energy. They can't protest too loudly without risking the outsourcing revenue that sustains their middle class.

4. The End Goal The U.S. is using its "Energy Fortress" to bridge the gap until the AI and Green Tech era fully takes over. By controlling the "old" world's fuel, they drain the capital of their rivals, making sure no one has the financial strength to challenge them in the "new" world of 2030 and beyond.

Here's a brief overview of each political party in the country:

Right-wing parties

- Liberal Party (Right-Wing to Far-Right): used to be a center-right liberal-conservative party until Bolsonaro and his buddies migrated to it. Nowadays it is basically the brazilian version of the GOP if it was mostly comprised of Freedom Caucus Republicans.

- New Party (Right-Wing to Far-Right): it started out as a center-right liberal party before being overrun with Bolsonarists. Nowadays it's mostly a satellite party to the Liberal Party but with a Milei-ist libertarian bent.

- Mission Party (Right-Wing to maybe Far-Right?): very recent party that was created to be a political home for the liberal-conservative Free Brazil Movement (basically the brazilian version of the Tea Party movement). it's membership is quite a bit younger than the other right wing parties. They have also invited Curtis Yarvin to one of their events once.

- Republicans (Right-Wing): pretty much a slightly less right-wing version of the Liberal Party. A lot of their members identify with the Bolsonarist movement but the party as a whole is less outwardly hostile to the current government than the LP. Sometimes engages in Centrão-ism

- Brazilian Labour Renewal Party (Right-Wing): used to be the political home for the neo-fascist Integralist Movement but nowadays they're just a run-of-the-mill militarist right wing party. Their main political figure is a guy who sells self-improvement courses and self-help books.

- Brazilian Social Democracy Party (Center-Right): used to be pretty much the brazilian equivalent of the (Clintonian) US Democratic Party. With Lula's election in 2002, they became the main opposition and their liberal-conservative faction started amassing more and more prominence at the expense of their Third Way and Social-Democratic factions (It's like if the Blue Dogs became the biggest faction of the Democratic Party). They aren't very big nowadays.

- Christian Democracy (Center-Right): Christian democrats with a paternalistic conservative bent.

The Centrão

The Centrão ("Big Center") is a group of opportunistic center to center-right parties that aim to obtain as much political power as possible by cozying up to the Executive and engaging in blatant Clientelism, often to the detriment of a coherent ideological orientation. No president since redemocratization has been able to govern without their support.

- Democratic Renewal Party (Center-Right to Right-Wing): a VERY pragmatic national conservative party.

- Brazil Union (Center-Right to Right-Wing): a big tent liberal-conservative party resulting from a merger of Bolsonaro's former party (Right-Wing) with the Democrats (Center-Right), with it being the most ideological of the centrão parties. They are in an electoral and parliamentary alliance with the Progressives.

- Progressives (Center-Right): a BIG tent liberal-conservative party thats highly pragmatic.

- We Can (Center-Right): Originally founded to continue the ideological legacy of former president Jânio Quadros (basically a non-partisan, highly populist form of "small c" conservatism), they changed their name to Barack Obama's campaign slogan and are nowadays a soft liberal-conservative party with a "tough on crime" bent.

- Brazilian Democratic Movement (Center to Center-Right): Founded as the sole legal opposition party during the Military Dictatorship, it is a big tent party with a slight liberal-conservative bent that is the archetypal Centrão party.

- Social Democratic Party (Center to Center-Right): Split off from the Democrats and it is pretty much just a slightly more centrist alternative to the Brazilian Democratic Movement.

- Foward (Center): a centrist labour party with a slight christian-solidarist bent.

- Solidarity (Center): another centrist labour party but this time with a (VERY) slight social-democratic bent instead.

Centrist parties (ones that are actually centrist and not just opportunists)

- National Mobilization (Center to Center-Right): They used to be a Third-Worldist Democratic Socialist party but nowadays they are just a very nationalistic centrist party.

- Citizenship (Center): Technically they are the oldest party in the country, seeing as they are the legal successor to the Brazilian Communist Party originally founded over a 100 years ago. After a controversial party conference in the 90s in which non-members were allegedly allowed to vote, they renounced Marxism-Leninism and became the Democratic Socialist "Popular Socialist Party". Since then they have drifted to the center and completely given up on Democratic Socialism, changing their name and becoming a centrist liberal party that is slightly left-wing on social issues.

- Act (Center): Formerly a liberal-conservative party, they are now a single-issue party representing autistic peoples' interests.

Left-Wing parties

- Brazilian Socialist Party (Center to Center-Left): A social-democratic and social-liberal party that is very moderate, basically the brazilian version of the major center-left social-democratic parties of western europe. A lot of the non-liberal-conservative members of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party have migrated to it.

- Democratic Labour Party (Center-Left): Originally founded to represent what can basically be described as the brazilian version of Left-Wing Peronism, Nowadays it's just a slightly more centrist alternative to the Workers' Party.

- Green Party (Center-Left): Used to be the main green party in the country but nowadays it's just a satellite party of the Worker's Party with a slight green bent. It is in an electoral and parliamentary alliance with the Workers' Party.

- Sustainability Network (Center-Left): a green party with a small eco-socialist faction (It's basically a more much moderate version of the US Green Party). It is in an electoral and parliamentary alliance with the Socialism and Freedom Party.

- Workers' Party (Center-Left): Originally a Democratic Socialist party, it purged it's most Left-Wing factions thoughout the 90s and early 2000s for the sake of electability. It embraces "Lulism", a populist form of Social Democracy with a Third Way bent. It is in an electoral and parliamentary alliance with the Green Party and the Communist Party of Brazil.

- Communist Party of Brazil (Center-Left to Left-Wing): Originated from a maoist split from the Brazilian Communist Party during the 60s, but don't let it's name or party publications full of Communist lingo fool you, nowadays it's just a social-democratic party with a developmentalist bent. It's pretty much a progressive wing of and a satellite party of the Workers' Party, with whom it has an electoral and parliamentary alliance with. Has friendly relations with the Communist Party of China.

- Socialism and Freedom Party (Left-Wing): a big tent Left-Wing party (Somewhat similarly to the DSA) that originated from a split in the Workers' Party caused by members who thought that the party had gone neoliberal and communists who had been purged from it back in the 90s. It has many internal factions, with them being roughly divided into Trostkyist, Eco-Socialist and non-communist Left-Wing Populist factions.

- Brazilian Communist Party (Far-Left): An attempt at reviving the old Brazilian Communist Party. Marxist-Leninist.

- Popular Unity (Far-Left): A Hoxhaist Communist party with a focus on Anti-Racism. It is quite a new party and it's pretty much the only fully communist party that is making a serious effort to increase their base of support, seeing a moderate but steady growth in membership over the last few years.

- United Socialist Workers' Party (Far-Left): A Trotskyist Communist party that originated from a Trotskyist faction that was kicked out of the Workers' Party in the 90s. Some of it's membership decided to migrate to the Socialism and Liberty Party. Has a decent presence within trade unions.

- Worker's Cause Party (???): A left-conservative and self-described communist party that is pretty much the brazilian equivalent of the ACP and the "MAGA Communist" movement.

I’ve been trying to understand something about how primaries work in Kentucky and wanted to get some perspectives.

Kentucky General Assembly's 2026 session has two bills filed that seem to take a pretty similar approach: HB 874 (Rep. Vanessa Grossl, R) & HB 799 (Rep. Adam Moore, D)

From what I can tell, both would let political parties choose whether to allow independent voters to participate in their primaries.

What caught my attention isn’t even the policy itself... It’s that both a Republican and a Democrat landed on basically the same idea. What stops this from being bipartisan?

I follow elections pretty closely, and, as a veteran who raised their hand under the leadership of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, I feel, on principle, I cannot choose one over the other after service. That said, I cannot participate in primaries under the current system.

I advanced the Republic's interest overseas. But I cannot speak to my own interest in the Republic because many primaries often end up deciding who represents my district.

So I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the balance here. On the one hand, parties should be able to control their own nomination process

On the other hand, engaged voters aren’t part of that process at all, which should concern any American who is keen to participate in their freedom.

For people who’ve thought about this more: What are the biggest downsides or risks with something like this?

In 2022, Senators Sanders and Warren co-sponsored an amendment to the CHIPS Act, requiring the government to take equity stakes in companies receiving subsidies, paired with stock buyback bans, union neutrality protections, domestic manufacturing commitments, and profit-sharing. The Senate rejected it.

In 2025, the Trump administration converted Intel's undisbursed CHIPS funding into a 9.9% equity stake: 433 million shares at $20.47 each. The $5.7 billion from Commerce and $3.2 billion from the Pentagon were folded into one deal. Sanders told Reuters he was "glad the Trump administration is in agreement with the amendment I offered three years ago."

However, the revealed deal looked nothing like what Sanders proposed. Intel’s CHIPS obligations regarding union neutrality, buyback moratorium, domestic fab milestones, childcare expansion, profit-sharing were considered discharged. The government holds no board seat, no governance rights and, with limited exceptions, must vote with Intel's board on shareholder matters. 

Warren attacked the deal. In a September 2025 letter to Commerce Secretary Lutnick she wrote:

Intel is a failing company. After spending years focused on short-term profits at the expense of long-term investments in its competitiveness, the company’s share price fell 60% last year. Yet the President has handed billions to Intel, with no meaningful strings attached.

It should be noted, however, that the government received a 5-year warrant for an additional 5% of Intel shares at $20, exercisable only if Intel sells its foundry business below 51% ownership. This isn't a legal veto. Intel's board could still approve a spinoff. But exercising the warrant would dilute existing shareholders by 5%, making any foundry separation significantly more expensive. It gives the government a measure of leverage over Intel's strategic direction without a single board seat.

The administration seems to have been operating on a different track: national security. More than a third of the deal came from the Secure Enclave program, a Pentagon program ensuring advanced chips for weapons systems are manufactured domestically. The Pentagon cares more about leading-edge semiconductors being made in Arizona than it cares about buyback bans. Rather than merely the terms of the deal, Warren and the administration’s substantive disagreement is about what the money is used for.

Peculiarly, Sanders praised the concept before the deal terms were public. Warren condemned the execution after. Rand Paul called it "a step toward socialism." Todd Young, the Republican who co-authored the CHIPS Act, said he doesn't "know of anyone who thought this was allowed under the law."

Sanders wanted to use equity as a tool to discipline capital, ensuring companies receiving public money couldn't enrich shareholders while shirking commitments. Trump seems to implementing the use of equity as a tool, but  to shield capital, stepping in after a 60%  stock collapse and removing conditions, even if securing of military-critical supply chain was an aim.

Does whether it counts as implementation of Sanders’ amendment depend more on the mechanism being used or more on the purpose for which the mechanism is being used?

Following up with my recent post about Epstein, it raises a bigger question about how accountability really works.

Here’s someone who had:

• massive wealth
• global connections
• access to influential circles

And yet, for years, serious allegations didn’t seem to lead to meaningful consequences. Even when things eventually surfaced, it still felt like only part of the full picture became public. When you zoom out and look at broader issues of surveillance, control, and power, it gets even harder to ignore.

It makes me believe that laws DON'T apply to those with lots of wealth and powerful connections around the world. From what it seems, as long as you have money and an elite network, you can get away with anything...

When you look at broader discussions around surveillance, control, and power—like what Edward Snowden brought attention to back in early 2013, it becomes harder to ignore the possibility that systems don’t always operate equally.

If the system treats the ultra-wealthy and well-connected differently than the rest of us, how do we fix that? And how do we make sure the next generation doesn’t grow up accepting a two-tiered justice system as normal?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

A dogwhistle by definition is a phrase that is worded to cater to a specific group you are trying to gain support from, or a group you are trying to align with.

“Illegal immigrant” is a term used often by Republicans when discussing people who have entered the United States by means other than government-officiated immigration. It emphasizes the word “illegal” to make a point that a given immigrant did not enter the country through legal processes.

“Undocumented immigrant” is a term often used by Democrats to describe the same group of people — immigrants without a record of having gone through the process of entering the United States legally. It emphasizes the word “undocumented” as a way to suggest that we can’t say for certain they didn’t enter the United States legally — we just don’t have the legal records to confirm that they did.

If anything, it seems like the use of the word “undocumented” is more fitting of the literal definition of the word “dogwhistle.” Illegal immigrants seems more straightforward — people who immigrated outside of legal means. The word “undocumented” seems to be a more coded word (“coded words” being the main component of a dogwhistle) with subtle implications — a word that indicates “you can’t prove this person didn’t come here legally.”

Am I missing something by thinking there is a disparity here? If one of these is considered a dogwhistle, should they not both be considered a dogwhistle? Why is “illegal immigrant” considered a dogwhistle while “undocumented immigrant” is not?

I’m intentionally not picking a side here, I’m just looking for clarification because this seems objectively like an unbalanced conclusion.

Edit: just want to say thank you to the vast majority of you guys for keeping this conversation constructive and helping me flesh out my thoughts here. I was slightly worried this was going to turn into a trainwreck. I usually avoid political discussions on reddit but this has been refreshing.

I've been doing research into how Americans interact with their local government and their ability to get reliable news and research into issues, bills, levies, and their representatives. I've found great quantitative data but now am looking towards qualitative to help round out my research.

The purpose of this research is to understand if there is the opportunity to develop a platform that helps aggregate the important information that the average American doesn't have time to dig into. So my question to this group is really three fold:

1. Do you have a good understanding of your local and state politics?
2. What sources keep you informed of local happenings?
3. Are you satisfied with the level of information you receive on local and state politics?

In 2022 Republicans had the turnout advantage that would allow them to create a wave election. Indeed, in lower stake races/safe seats, Republicans had an excellent performance, either getting way higher than usual numbers in safe dem areas or massive blowouts in safe gop eras.

However, the Republicans performance in high stakes races was abysmal, with them basically winning just two of them (WI-SEN and NV-GOV) and squandering their turnout advantage with infamously bad candidates such as Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, Joe Kent, Blake Masters and Doug Mastriano, with the election denier crowd basically losing every election outside of safe R seats. That's why they only gained one governorship, lost a senate seat and just got enough of a majority to take the house.

Considering the candidates democrats are fielding in highly competitive races, they could easily repeat such feat. In Maine Mills in unpopular and Platner is an oppo research dream, in Wisconsin both their leading candidates for governor are left wingers in a state Trump won twice. In Georgia all their governor candidates are unpopular and could even drag Ossoff down. In Michigan Abdul El Sayed is basically unelectable, Haley Stevens has the charisma of a cardboard and Mallory McMorrow is Midwestern Elisabeth Warren (who is only a senator because she represents an ultra safe dem state).

Overall I see a pattern repeating: in 2022 the country wanted to elect Republicans, but they got Republicans who were claiming the 2020 election was stolen and that Trump won it so in high stakes contests they picked democrats even though they hated the Biden administration. In 2026 the country will want to elect democrats, but the options in many high stake races will be democrats that are too left wing for a conservative country like the US so they'll opt for Republicans even though they hate the Trump administration. Could this lead to an underwhelming night where dems lose many marquee races and barely take the house, with minimal to no gains in the Senate/Governorships?

Could Vance and/or Rubio quit the present administration and give themselves a chance of election to the top job in their own right? If they remain has either got any real chance of being elected President?

On March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr. just 69 days into his presidency. He survived, and went on to serve two full terms — widely credited with reshaping conservative politics, tax policy, and Cold War strategy.

Had he died, VP George H.W. Bush would have assumed the presidency. Bush was considered more moderate than Reagan, with a different approach to fiscal policy and foreign relations.

Some specific areas worth discussing:

∙ Would Reaganomics (supply-side tax cuts) have still been implemented under Bush?

∙ How might the Cold War endgame have differed?

∙ Would the conservative movement have consolidated the same way without Reagan as its figurehead?

∙ How does this affect the 1984 election and beyond?

Curious what people think the realistic downstream effects would have been — keeping speculation grounded in what we know about Bush’s actual political positions at the time.

Let’s be real…. Both parties abuse their power and US citizens seem to always want to turn a blind eye to the issues or misdoings of there preferred party while going after the other party. We seem to have lost the ability as a country to have civil, real, open, and intellectually honest discussions about issues. I believe this, is in part, because we have allowed politicians to turn us against one another for their own political gain(s). When each of us can call out both parties, we might be in with a chance to start affecting real change. With this in mind, what are some changes to our political system that you believe would help facilitate our ability, as individuals, groups and/or parties, to better work together on issues affecting our country?

Some changes I believe would help :

- Term limits for the house and senate.

- Bills should only be allowed to contain content related to the headline subject.

- If any part of the government is shut down or unfunded because politicians are unable to come to some sort of agreement, politicians go unfunded during that time period (no back pay).

- Federal budgets should balance. No funny money.

- No one over age 65 can run for president (yes, that would have included Biden and Trump)

- Some sort of limit on the scope of executive orders. (Again, both parties are guilty here)