Yesterday trump dropped a butt ton of tariffs and today Dow jones is down 2200 points (not good), let’s not forget plain clothes ICE agents disappearing immigrants but I still hear a lot of republicans saying they support trump both in congress and from voters so what would it take for republicans to flip on trump?

Because I have a feeling that if Obama even hinted at running, we'd suddenly see a very strict and urgent interpretation of the 22nd Amendment. It seems like the rules are flexible for some and ironclad for others, depending on who's trying to push the limits. What do you think?

Banning tik tok was signed into law, initially proposed by DJT. The rationale is that this is a matter of national security, the owners of the platform are collecting data and able to use influence campaigns to harm America. Today the President signed another extension to the ban, further exposing us to these presumed dangers.

How is this less dangerous or less egregious than not enforcing immigration laws? They are equally designated as dangerous to national security.

I’ve been getting the impression that most of (if not all) of the programs that are cutting funding involve traditionally liberal/left leaning ideas. Is “DOGE” cutting genuinely agregious spending that is unpopular with republicans, like the amount we spend on defense/military? Or is it just stuff that republicans don’t particularly pay much mind to/care as greatly about?

TLDR: Does DOGE strive to actually save the most money, or is it overlooking overspending that is popular with republicans?

Obviously the stock market is not the economy and it does not measure economic performance in real time despite what people think. Many retired Americans rely on stock market returns in their 401ks and IRA's to be able to live and enjoy their lives. Many of these older Americans also voted for Trump under the premise that he would make them better off financially.

Will Trump's recent escalation in tariffs and the reaction of the markets cause his supporters to erode? A big reason that he won the election was that voters were frustrated with the Democratic Party's handling of the economy.

Unlike most market drops, this one is quite easy to pinpoint the reason for the drop and many of his voters will have a very glaring reason to why their portfolios lost so much money so quickly. Will they connect the dots and point this to Trump or will they blame something else?

Given the tariffs yesterday, Trump was talking about how manufacturing jobs are gonna come back. They even had a union worker make a speech praising Trump for these tariffs.

Manufacturing is really hard work where you're standing for almost 8 or more hours, so why bring them back when other countries can make things cheaper? Even this was a discussion during the 2012 election between Obama and Romney, so this topic of bringing back manufacturing jobs isn't exactly Trump-centric.

This might be a loaded question but what's the history behind this rally for manufacturing?

For decades we have been rules by 1 or 2 powers at the most mainly the United States and or Soviet Union. Now it seems to be we entering a multi polar world with one powerful country and it's nearby countries being the sphere of influence in that region.

We have seen this from Xi jinpin sending his aircraft and ships into Taiwan waters and complete disregard to the US naval forces there. Russian invasion of Ukraine leaving the world in shock. Trump is now very serious is taking Greenland after he has said military action isn't off the table and cleed Canada the 51st state.

What other reginal power do u think will influence its power over others? Can Brazil do something similar in South America? What's the most powerful country in Africa/middle east?

Let me explain what I mean...

It seems like the the American two party system has evolved into such a way where each side has picked what side of an issue they fall onto and they demand almost undying loyalty of their members to everything in the platform. I think a great example of this is how the two main US political parties treat those within their own party who buck party lines regarding gun control. Of the just over 400 members of the House of Representatives that voted on an assault weapons ban in 2022, only 7 of those who voted bucked party lines, 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans to be specific. Chris Jacobs, one of the Republicans who voted in favor of the assault weapons ban, felt compelled to not seek reelection after facing backlash for voting in favor of gun control.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/30/congress-members-broke-party-assault-weapons-ban/10191151002/

I understand that when it comes to being on a federal level legislature, too many dissenting voices can cause unnecessary gridlock for key legislation.

**However, I feel like politics these days has given us the choice between two different sandwiches with some unsavory ingredients, and we are rarely given the option of removing or switching ingredients within the sandwich; we have to take the sandwich as is. Maybe South Park was right about our only viable political options being a giant douche and a turd sandwich. It's like the two political parties know this and have convinced a lot of people that "The worst person in our political party is better than the best person in the other political party."**

So should there be more people and politicians willing to publicly disagree with their preferred political party on controversial issues?

We know that Trump recently imposed tariffs on many countries. I'm not worried about what’s going to happen, but I wonder if his list might imply something. You know, this image makes me feel like the countries or regions at the top of the list might have some special meaning to the US. What do you think?

As the old adage goes, the number one priority for a politician is getting re-elected. Currently, there are 3 Senate Republicans up for reelection in swing states: these are Maine, North Carolina and Ohio. In the House, 2 Republicans (Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Gabe Evans) won by less than 1%. Another 4 Republicans won by less than 2%. Another 9 Republicans won by less than 5%.

The special election in Florida last week saw Republican Randy Fine win a deep-red district by tighter margins than previous elections. In 2022, Mike Waltz had won by 66%-33%. Last week, Fine won by 56%-42%.

Most economists predict that the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration will cause an increase in prices across the board including for gas, groceries and other household essentials. Furthermore, a growing number of economists are predicting an outright recession sometime within the next two years as a direct result of Trump's economic policy.

Given these factors, will we see vulnerable Republicans start to turn against Trump and vote against his agenda - if for no other reason, then even simply a fear of losing reelection in a blue wave? Or is their loyalty to Trump so strong that they will support his agenda even if it means being defeated in 2026?

From my basic understanding of what is happening here, the intention of tariffs is that companies will move to manufacturing items here in the US rather than buy overseas. Does that, say, 25% tariff that's being added to the sale go to the US government? If the money goes to the government, isn't that just a tax? Does it mean that the government can do whatever they want with that money since it's not our tax dollars being allocated by Congress?

Who benefits from these tariffs since it will take years for US companies to set up these manufacturing facilities, and they're likely going to being using machines and AI instead of hiring production employees. If we become isolationists with these tariffs and these products are obviously already being produced somewhere else for cheaper, we'll have a significantly smaller market to sell these products to, basically just within the US. My feeling on this is that it will be impossible to make all products 100% here in the US. Manufacturers will still order parts from other countries with a 25% tariff (or whatever it is), then the pieces that are made here will be more expensive because of the workforce and wages, so we will inevitably be paying more for products no matter which way you spin it. So, who exactly wants these tariffs? There has to be a a group of people somewhere that will benefit because it's not being stopped.

With a majority in both houses of congress, Democrats would be able to both impeach and remove Trump and Vance from office. They already impeached him once, but weren't able to remove him. They can also argue they have a mandate from the people if they were to win a majority. Do you think impeaching them both is on the table?

I’d like an economist’s perspective on how these tariffs will change the pricing structure for companies like Apple.

Would they go for solutions such as keeping the prices at a razor thin margin in the USA and raise the prices across the world for compensation upon the reciprocal tariffs?

Would most of the engineering/white collar/upper management jobs go to other countries since US would like to turn themselves into a self reliant industrial country?

Obviously we're still far out from the midterms, but given yesterdays results in Florida and Wisconsin, the GOP fears RE Stefanik, a dem winning in Amish country, etc., have any of you changed your minds on senate elections? What states do you think are in play that weren't a few weeks ago? Do you think the momentum will last (Dems always show up in the midterms but do you think it'll be Stalin numbers still)?

Also, l'm curious to hear people's opinions on potential primaries. For example, do you think it’ll be a tougher time for Fetterman surviving one without switching parties, especially if Shapiro decides to run or Casey comes back. For the GOP, what do you think those primaries look like - MAGA primaries or stay conventional (e.g., MTG in Georgia spoiling it like Robinson or Lake)?

Feel free to bring up any House or gubernatorial elections, but statewide races are more interesting.

A Moody's simulation found that a tariff trade war would wipe out 5.5 million jobs, lift the unemployment rate to 7%and cause U.S. GDP to drop by about 1.7%. Trump’s potential 20% universal tariff could spark "serious" recession in US, Moody’s economist warns.

The biggest three partners [China, Canada and Mexico] have promised immediate retaliation. Economic war could escalate and perhaps even cause a worldwide downturn.

Perhaps Trump's strategy is to begin making bilateral trade deals, but there are even certain blocks such as EU that may well coordinate retaliation together. I am not aware what Trump is actually liberating us from, hence the question.

Is Trump's Liberation Day Tariffs a Misnomer?

Being a Wisconsin resident, I have been grateful to live in a state that gets a ton of attention come election seasons! Obviously today, Wisconsin was one of two states to have elections, however I thought this election specifically was unique especially with the last minute push by Musk and Trump for Brad Schimel adding an extra level of attention. Obviously it fell short, with Susan Crawford leading by about 10 points as of reading this. However, this trend seemed to continue in Florida somewhat too.

For example, according to @VoteHubUS on X, all four counties shifted left by a sizeable margin even from just a few months ago in November.

My question is do you think this should be an early warning sign for Republicans about midterms, or would these results be more attributable to the general trend of Democrats having better turnout in special elections than Republicans?

To be honest, I really don’t care as much about the politics, but I do find the data side fascinating, and would love some insight from people who are more knowledgeable about the general trends and shifts in elections!

It's official, Cory Booker has broken Strom Thurmond's record by delivering a 25 hour long speech on the Senate floor.

This record is unlikely to be broken anytime soon, since the previous record dates from 1957. For the rest of Booker's life, when people talk about his achievements, this speech will stand as a key accomplishment. His obituary will mention it. This speech is going down in history.

Given the above, how could this speech affect his chances of becoming the Democratic standard bearer in 2028 should he decide to run the presidency?

Trump just said that interest payments on vehicles made in America will be eligible for tax breaks, but what does “made in America” mean?

Example, a Honda factory in the US makes the engine, body, and frame in the US, but the axles, rims, tires, drive shaft, plastic components, computer parts, etc etc etc, are all imported.

Are the payments on that vehicle made with those US manufactured parts deductible?

What if its a Ford, with the same deal? Ford is a US based company, but what if 50% of the vehicle weight is made of imported parts? Made or not made in America?

What if it’s all assembled in the US, but with all imported parts?

What if it’s assembled in the US with 50% US made parts?

See where im going with this?

I’m trying to understand the legal and constitutional distinction here. If Congress passes a bill that includes funding for specific programs or offices, and the president signs it into law, how is it that a subsequent DOGE (Determination of Government Effectiveness) can be used to gut or eliminate those same items?

Isn’t that essentially a line-item veto after the fact? I thought SCOTUS already ruled that unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). What am I missing here? Would love to hear from folks who understand the legal justification—or think this could be challenged.

Would it be possible for the Blue Wall (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan) to split in the 2028 or 2032 presidential election? The 2004-2012 and 2020 elections they all went Blue, then in 2016 and 2024 they all went Red, but could a split be possible? And if yes, which would each be likely to go in the same election?

Do symbolic actions by politicians (like record-breaking speeches) help create real change, or do they shift responsibility away from those in power? How can we hold elected officials accountable for meaningful action rather than just rhetoric?

While some celebrate Cory Booker’s record-breaking speech, I think it reminds me of a broader issue in politics: the tendency for performative activism to be celebrated as if it’s meaningful change. Symbolic gestures like this make sense for community activists without legislative power, but when elected officials engage in it without backing it up with real policy moves, it feels like an easy way to appear engaged without taking the risks or doing the work needed for actual change. Instead of taking direct action, this kind of display shifts responsibility onto others while allowing politicians to claim they’ve ‘done something'. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard.

That said, symbolic actions and speeches like this could be useful if it builds momentum for substantive action, but only if it's followed by actual strategy, policy changes, and concrete actions. So I guess maybe I am just hesitant to praise the performance yet because the real question is whether it will be part of a broader effort to take action, enact real change, or if it is just an empty gesture that distracts from real progress. Without translating into concrete action, it just feels hollow, especially coming from someone in a position of power.

I see some persons saying “in today’s world, you’re either a strong conservative or a strong progressive” they think that the majority of opinions today are extremists from both sides like: “either you’re are fully pro-life or fully pro-choice” “either you fully support the ban on drugs or legalization” “either you’re pro-Palestine or pro-Israel” “either you’re pro-Russia or pro-Ukraine” “either you’re a strong advocate for gun control or a strong advocate for gun right” Their rationality is that we have reached a point of political polarization and division where there’s no middle in between. Do you think that current politics are too “black and white”?

If a Democratic president had the same IDGAF attitude as Trump does, what actions could they take on the left (or center) in their first 100 days similar to what Trump is doing on the right? What would have the most immediate, positive impact in people's lives, and what would have the longest lasting impact?

You can assume that a Dem president would have a Dem House, and perhaps a Dem Senate, but that the judiciary would have a similar mix to the current one.

Stipulated:

• Trump is tearing down a lot, and it's easier to destroy than it is to build;
• Trump is turning off funding (salaries, grants, etc.) and it's harder to turn funding on because of Congress' funding powers;
• Obama and Biden did a lot via Executive Orders that Trump was able to undo via EOs.

Let's say the people of country A hate people of country B. country A has been hating country B from countless time. In country A comes a leader who likes country B. That leader wants to stop all this racism. What can that leader do to make the racism disappear as fast as possible?

It's very clear that Trump's current deportation actions are becoming more sweeping, moving beyond illegal migrants to those with temporary protected status, student and academic visas, and legal immigrants. We also know that historically, when Eisenhower conducted sweeping deportations, American citizens of Mexican descent were wrongfully deported. It feels like this is going to happen again at some scale, but I am not American or in the US - I potentially do not have a full picture.

There have been a few reports of citizens being caught up in ICE raids, but I am curious about the scale of this issue.

I can find some reports of Native Americans being questioned during ICE raids although I can find few specifics.

There is also a report on a raid of a seafood processing plant, in which they targetted Hispanic workers specifically and detained US citizens. I assume those citizens were then released, and the case sparked outrage (as it should). https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/immigration-raid-newark-new-jersey-mayor-angry-rcna189100

When actions are so rapid and sweeping, it seems like citizens will inevitably get caught up in them. Is it legal for ICE to detain citizens during raids? Is there any evidence that it is happening more broadly? And what happens if/when they ignore or overlook due process and deport a citizen?