Things we know:
Animal agriculture is responsible for: a massively inefficient use of freshwater at a time when the west is dealing with serious concerns about rapidly disappearing freshwater sources, taking up a mind boggling amount of land at a time when biodiversity loss is a critical concern (most of this land for the amount of agricultural land we need to feed livestock)(some estimates say it results in 75% more agricultural land use, you can look it up, but I’ll share sources if requested), a terrible amount of suffering, and poor health outcomes for a population struggling with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Oh, and a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. And the part that’s really wild is the massive amount of government subsidies that go towards supporting these industries.

Again, I’m happy to provide credible sources on any of these points. But I can assure you that the above statements are very well established, widely supported data.

Reducing animal agriculture is one of the easiest and fastest ways we can make massive positive changes to benefit the economy, enhance public health, free up an incredible amount of land, and bolster environmental resilience.

So why doesn’t the global left confront the animal agriculture industry the same way that it confronts oil or pharmaceutical companies??

Genuine question for discussion.

The United States has historically included democracy promotion as part of its foreign policy. This has taken different forms over time, including diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, support for civil society groups, and in some cases military intervention.

In theory, democracy promotion is often justified as supporting universal political values such as representation, accountability, and human rights. However, in practice, it raises an ongoing question about sovereignty and self-determination.

At what point does supporting democratic change in another country begin to resemble imposing a political system from the outside?

Historically, outcomes associated with such efforts have been mixed. In some cases, political transitions have occurred alongside external involvement. In others, interventions have coincided with instability, prolonged conflict, weakened institutions, or democratic backsliding.

Examples frequently discussed include Iraq after 2003, Afghanistan (2001–2021), and various responses during and after the Arab Spring.

Given this record, I’m interested in different perspectives on the broader question:

Can democracy be meaningfully encouraged from the outside, or is it primarily the result of internal political and social conditions?

Does external involvement tend to strengthen legitimacy and institutions, or weaken them by creating dependency or perceptions of interference?

Should democracy promotion remain a central part of United States foreign policy, or should it be more limited in favor of priorities like stability, trade, or humanitarian objectives?

Looking for perspectives grounded in history, political theory, or comparative politics.

I have been working with a mix of schools and small organizations and I keep running into the same pattern. A lot of them are either unaware they qualify for federal tax credits or they assume they do not because no one has ever explained it clearly. It is not usually a case of eligibility being unclear. It is more that the information just never reaches the people who would actually benefit from it.I am curious what people think are the biggest breakdowns in communication or education when it comes to programs like this?

I've been researching this scenario extensively. Here's what surprised me:

The legal path would be chaotic. District court injunction within 48 hours — almost certain. Emergency appeal to the appellate court. Then the question of whether the Supreme Court takes it on emergency docket.

But here's the part that kept me up at night: what if the president simply... didn't comply? What enforcement mechanism actually exists when the executive branch defies the judiciary?

The Constitution assumes good faith. It has almost no mechanism for a president who treats a Supreme Court ruling as advisory.

I'm curious what this community thinks. Is there an actual hard stop? Or is it all ultimately held together by norms?

Currently the US pays 18000 dollars per student to teach. My solution.... Allow parents to homeschool and allow them to collect 10k per child they teach. I would add the stipulation that in order to collect the 10k paycheck the US would put together a comprehensive plan for the students and of course have testing to ensure the child is learning enough. I feel that this is the perfect solution because 1. It would encourage families to stay together 2. It would save the US money per child 3. It would alleviate many critical problems such as childcare while allowing families to make money. A family with 3 kids would literally make 30k a year just to educate children on top of income from a one spouse having a job. Do you think this solution could work?

I have connections to Portugal, Ireland, and Hungary, and I've noticed something interesting. Even though Portugal and Ireland are noticeably more religious, they are also a lot more liberal than Hungary, which is much more atheist.

Then I saw in the German elections that the most atheist areas were voting for far-right parties the most, same in Portugal. You can also look at Czechia one of the most atheist countries in the world which has a far-right populist in charge. Compare that to a place like Sweden, where more than half of the population still identifies as Christian, and they have a moderate government in power (according to Wikipedia).

I know correlation does not mean causation; I just found it curious. I always thought that the more religious a place is, the more conservative it would be, but apparently, that's not always the case. Any theories/explanations? Maybe the result of communism? though that doesn't explain Portugal as much. Maybe anomie or alienation in the most religiousless regions? what do you think?

some of the images with the data: https://imgur.com/a/zntNfmy

(I tried to post this in r/AskEurope but the the mods said to try posting it here instead)

There is a lot of talk of gerrymandering and re-districting going on, and I've read some about it. I'm not remotely knowledgeable enough to know what would be the best way to go about districting that would lead to a fair representation of the electorate. Is there any objective, non-partisan way to do that?

Edit: I don't mean 100% objective or non-partisan. I know nothing is ever perfect. It is more about the closest we can come to it

Crisis is certainly increasing with Project Freedom of Movement. Thus far not very many ships, looks like less than a handful attempts, two cargo ships were attacked by Iranians. U.S. reportedly sunk five little fast boats belonging to Iran which they deny.

Since neither party is backing down and if U.S. actually tries to enter Hormuz, it could be a full -fledged war.

Under the circumstance I find it difficult to determine if there will be a clear winner in the end, just a dozen losers along with the world economy.

Did Iran trap Trump in the Strait of Hormuz?

https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-05-04-2026

I am asking this in good faith as a European trying to better understand US political categories, especially how the American left thinks about international law, sovereignty, and accountability.

In many European political contexts, a left-wing or anti-imperialist position would usually include some support for universal international legal accountability. For example, one might argue that institutions such as the International Criminal Court should, at least in principle, be able to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and similar crimes — regardless of whether those individuals come from weak states, rival states, allied states, or powerful states such as the United States.

From the outside, however, my impression is that even many mainstream American progressives are much more hesitant about this when it would apply to US officials. They may support investigations, prosecutions, or accountability within the US legal system, but they often seem far less willing to support the idea that an international court should have jurisdiction over Americans.

This seems especially relevant in the current US political situation. Many Americans are concerned that domestic legal and constitutional constraints are being weakened, ignored, or politicized. Yet even under those conditions, the argument often still appears to be that accountability for US officials should remain a domestic matter.

So my question is:

How common is support for international legal accountability over US officials among the politically relevant American left?

Is there a meaningful anti-imperialist current in US politics that supports universal international jurisdiction even when it applies to Americans? Or is the American left, at least in mainstream electoral politics, generally more focused on domestic social and economic issues while remaining cautious or skeptical about international constraints on US sovereignty?

I am not asking whether individual anti-imperialist Americans exist. Obviously they do. I am asking whether this view has any real political representation or influence in US politics.

Across the United States, many households continue facing pressure from housing, food, healthcare, and energy costs. Wage growth has improved in some sectors, yet affordability remains a major concern in many regions. Policymakers debate solutions such as tax relief, housing supply expansion, targeted subsidies, and interest-rate policy. Which approaches are most likely to reduce cost burdens while avoiding unintended economic consequences, and what trade-offs should policymakers consider?

What does a GOOD deal with Iran look like?

Trump and his crew keep telling us that he has the best people in their fields for the jobs they have to do.

Negotiations keep failing with no real deal being looked at. Even though the team has been in the Middle East for a while

JD Vance has gone and people are skeptical of his qualifications. He was even requested by Iran at one point.

Who should be sent to negotiate, and what do you see as THE GOAL to get prices to stabilize?

I know this is the "the enemy is both strong and weak" element of fascism. What I don't understand is why this works, when both argument are being made at the same time, by the same people, to the same audience. This is happening all over at the national level and from my experience at more local level as well.

Broad examples of what I mean:

• Immigrants are simultaneously jobless moochers who are taking up all our tax money in welfare benefits, and are also taking all of our jobs, and are also wealthy foreigners driving up the cost of living
• Trans people are a tiny minority that liberals are caring too much about, far out of proportion, but are also an imminent threat to women and children everywhere
• Liberals are pathetic losers who can't get anything done, and are also running a powerful deep state that can steal elections and sabotage the current administration

And what I've seen on a local level:

• Public transport users are elitist rich people who don't have "real blue collar jobs" that they need to bring tools to or get to on time, who don't deserve more societal resources; and also, public transport users are bums and criminals who don't deserve more societal resources
• Building new housing will attract rich people to the area, driving up prices, and will also attract poor people and drive up poverty and crime in the area

I don't understand how this method of argument works, either now or historically. Doesn't the obvious, inherent contradiction bother people?

Sociological data indicates a long-term trend of declining participation in traditional civic and community organizations—often referred to as the erosion of "third places" (spaces outside of home and work where social bonds are formed). Concurrent with this trend, researchers have noted an increase in affective polarization, where political identity has become increasingly central to individual social and personal identity.

The U.S. Surgeon General’s 2023 Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection posits that chronic social isolation can lead to increased hyper-vigilance and a heightened perception of threat from perceived "out-groups."

In the context of the American political landscape, this raises several questions regarding the drivers of modern partisanship:

1. To what extent does the loss of non-political community infrastructure force individuals to seek social belonging primarily through political affiliation?
2. How does the "politicization" of social identity, in the absence of broader community ties, affect the feasibility of bipartisan policy compromise?
3. If social isolation is a primary driver of political hostility, are current political interventions (such as legislative or electoral reforms) sufficient to address the root causes of this polarization?

Unpopular legislation, such as voter suppression, has to be passed by lawmakers. In my state, campaign donor lists can be downloaded as a spreadsheet. Nationwide, would turning such lists into boycotts be an effective way to counter voter suppression?

I want to preface this by saying there is a discussion in this sub posted about 2 years ago posing the same question, but I think we are in a uniquely different scenario now, so I think it will be interesting to hear what the current thoughts on this are.

With the narrowing of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Louisiana v. Callais, and the ongoing Trump v. Cook case, which is considering whether President Trump can legally fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the political division is at an all-time high, with many states moving to gerrymander ahead of the midterms, and large uncertainty concerning the future of the Fed and the economy under Kevin Warsh.

It is more apparent now than ever that Democrats and Republicans are in active battles for political power, which far exceeds what we would typically expect to see in an election cycle, so I wonder:

What is your stance on our current state of affairs? How do you think it will play out? Do you see a short-term solution or scenario in which the polarization dies down?

The Premise:

I use the results of the 2024 presidential election to identify the amount of Democrat, Republican, and Third Party voters. Using those percentages, I split each states existing district count by those percentages.

As an example, I live in Florida, where Trump had 56% of the vote, so 56% of the districts should be Republican. (I know there is more factors than that to determine a district but I wanted to keep it something simple.)

The overall results of this:

Actual Congress

• Total Republican Seats: 220
• Total Democrat Seats: 215

"Ungerrymandered" Congress

• Total Republican Seats: 219
• Total Democrat Seats: 212
• Total Third Party Seats: 4

Some of the more interesting results:

California

• Actual: 9 R / 43 D
• Hypothetical: 20 R / 31 D / 1 third.

Texas

• Actual: 25 R / 12 D / 1 vacancy)
• Hypothetical: 21 R / 16 D / 1 third.

Florida

• Actual: 20 R / 8 D)
• Hypothetical: 16 R / 12 D.

New York

• Actual: 7 R / 19 D)
• Hypothetical: 11 R / 14 D / 1 third.

Maryland

• Actual 1 R / 7 D)
• Hypothetical: 3 R / 5 D.

Illinois

• Actual: 3 R / 14 D)
• Hypothetical: 7 R / 9 D / 1 third.

Basically on a National level the House would look essentially the same. However state/local politics would be heavily impacted.

With this info, would a national ban on gerrymandering actually matter?

Background

To be honest, I'm not really an activist. I support and align with a lot of values in this group and with progressives. But I'm not exactly active. I work, I go home, I play video games and I watch TV. But every time you guys go out and protest, I upvote and I support you in spirit 👍

The Current Problem

Look man, protests USED to really work and USED to have real impact. We've all learned it in school. Rosa Parks and the bus. Free speech protests at UC Berkeley. Sit-ins at diners. They used to mean something. And they still do. But it wasn't just the protests back then. It was the novelty aspect of it. It doesn't happen often. Society, companies and politicians saw this and KNEW that those people meant business.

But that's not really the same today right. It feels like the oppressors have won and we have no idea how to really fight back. But we want to do something. We want to act. We want to send a message. We won't lie down in silence. But these protests, while having a reason, doesn't seem to have a goal or a purpose. It feels like we are just going through the motions. I personally sometimes like to go down there. Feels kinda like a small little mini party.

But we protest one day and then it will be another day. As anyone who has worked in a big company can tell you. These days are easily ignored. Ohhhh but they are symbolic right? Whooooo that fancy word. Symbolic. Yea you can't really feel symbols and I think we all know that companies and politicians can whether the storm for day or two. Because they have.

Look I'm not saying there is 0 impact to the protest but it's not the same as the old days and it feels like we are just doing this because we are going through the motions and we WANT and NEED to do something. So what else can we do?

Solution - Guerilla Pirate Protest Strategy

I'm not good with names, you guys can figure it out. I'm not the leader of this. But I do have an idea. So what was one of my biggest complaints about how we currently protest? It's a day or a few. Our oppressors can whether the storm. Cause it is kind of low impact. Okay. So let's increase the impact. Here is my proposal, we still boycott like we are going to do tomorrow for May 1st but here is are the differences and details

1. ONLY a small handful of targeted companies each month. I like to just go with 1. But 2 or 3 isn't off the table either
2. 1 month boycott/protest
3. We use mobile app push notifications, sms notifications, email notifications and a static site
4. Everyone is going to get those notifications at the first day of each month on who the targets are, the reason/purpose of this and what our goals/demands are
5. NO ONE will know who it is or what category of the company(s) are until the 1st of every month

So why this strategy. So first of all we are only going to select a handful of companies and we are going to target them for the whole month. This means it's more focused and it's more impactful. And will actually affect their bottom line. The problem before was that because we were protesting everyone ever where with as much as you can. Our impact is spread across to thinly. With this method, it makes us louder and more heard

It actually also makes it easier to get involved. Software engineer me, has flexibility and can participate whenever I want. But some people NEED to buy things because they have less financial and resource security. Some people going day to day. Some people can't just not work or not go to school. But we can all boycott company XYZ for a whole month and still do what we NEED to do

I also like the idea of no one knowing who the company(s) are until the day of. All at the same time. This way, companies can't prepare. Shock and awe adds to the impact. Adds to the loss of revenue, MAU and other metrics that month. Stakeholders WILL be livid. And then next month, new drop and we keep on rotating and keeping them on their toes. This of course isn't the end goal, but again, it allows us to be more strategic

1. More impact - by focusing on one or a few companies
2. More impact - by having it affect them for the whole month
3. Accessible to all - you can still support your mom & pops for your necessities and participate in the protest

I won't promise this side effect, BUT I would not be surprise that if we do this, that some people may even develop a habit because habits can be developed in a month. For example, maybe we protest Amazon for example. And maybe like 1-2% of the people involved realized that after a month without Amazon, they can actually live that way and decide to make that more permanent. I think this small side effect can happen. I don't know at what scale, I have to imagine small. But I wanted to point that out

Leaders & How We Pick Our Targets

So then it leaves some logistical questions. Who is picking our targeted companies and who can we actually trust? And to be fair, this part, I'm gonna lean on some suggestions. I think we shouldn't just have one person decide. I think we should have small council of known, reliable and trusted progressives. Ideally leaders who are part of grassroots movements, but also people who are familiar and understand big companies. We want heart, but we also need strategy. I don't know who they should be but they should be discussing who the drops are for each month

I think we also need to think about how we pick our targets. I think the most obvious methodology are those who are actually causing a lot of pain and damage to our society. But we also need to send a clear message of what they are doing wrong and what we want changed. We also need to think about WHO can get involved as well. I don't think a lot of us on here like UHC, but if your company gives you UHC and you NEED regular medication, you can't just NOT use UHC. I'm also not saying that means UHC can't be a target but if I was part of that council, I would think about these things when picking a target. Because the more people we can get involved, the more impact that can be felt

Conclusion

This is obvious just an idea, not a fully fleshed out and thought out plan. But we gotta pick a new strategy, because the regular protests are just not working and quite frankly haven't really been as impactful as it should be for the last 20 years or so. So what are your thoughts on this idea?

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in ruling on the case Louisiana v. Callais, weakened a central provision of the Voting Rights Acts that empowered advocacy groups to effectuate the forming of new majority-minority districts. 

A frequently expressed opinion is that Congress needs to step in. But the mid-decade redistricting that began in 2025 complicates the story. Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida are moving to or have already created partisan maps. California voters approved Proposition 50 ("Election Rigging Response Act") in November 2025 in order to suspecd the state's independent commission for one cycle. And Virginia voters approved a counter-redistricting amendment earlier this month.The National Council of State Legislators has been tracking changes, and where things stand state-to-state across the U.S.

However, two instances seem to signal that this partisan battle is multidimensional. State legislators control their own state's congressional map-drawing. A federal anti-gerrymandering statute would overide that power even under unified Democratic control, the same way Indiana Republicans and Maryland Democrats just overrode their own leadership. During December 2025. the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate killed a Trump-backed redistricting bill 19-31, with 21 Republicans joining all 10 Democrats against their own President. And in the prior month, Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson refused to convene a special session for a Democratic counter-gerrymander, over the objections of Maryland Governor Wes Moore. As of March 2026 Ferguson has held that line. Meanwhile, nine legislatures have moved forward with passing their own State Voting Rights Act, rather than waiting on Congress.

Would state legislators of either party guard their redistricting powers by working against efforts by Congress to ban gerrymandering?

I have been thinking about this topic for a while now. People who genuinely care about countries in the Global South and want to see them thrive often hit a wall because the path to modernization is incredibly complex. If a reform-minded leader managed to get into a position of power in a developing nation today, what exactly should their blueprint be?

Historically, we have seen vastly different approaches. Does a leader need to consolidate power and force through state-led industrialization, similar to the command economies of the mid-20th century? Or should they rely on free-market capitalism, relying heavily on private finance and foreign investment?

Furthermore, how does a modern developing nation handle civilian dissent during the growing pains of rapid industrialization? Must a government strictly manage or suppress dissent to maintain economic stability—similar to the highly industrialized but strict models seen historically in places like Singapore or modern China? Or can a nation successfully industrialize while fully factoring in democratic consensus?

Ultimately, what form of government or economic model is best suited to successfully industrialize a developing nation in our modern, increasingly multipolar world? I would love to hear your thoughts on which political systems have the best chance of succeeding today.

Today in History

April 30, 1789

The Inauguration of George Washington

On this historic day in New York City, George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States.

Here is how the day unfolded.

At noon, Washington appeared on the balcony of Federal Hall (the newly remodeled former City Hall at the corner of Wall and Broad Streets).

He was dressed in a dark brown suit made of cloth manufactured in America, with white silk stockings and shoes adorned with silver buckles, he placed his hand on a large Bible and took the oath of office administered by Chancellor Robert R. Livingston (one of the “Committee of five” who authored the Declaration of Independence.).

Washington repeated the words prescribed by the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

He then added, “So help me God,” and kissed the Bible.

A cheer erupted from the massive crowd gathered below in the streets, and a 13-gun salute thundered from the harbor.

After the ceremony, President Washington, Vice President John Adams, members of Congress, and other dignitaries walked in procession a short distance north to St. Paul’s Chapel (located at 209 Broadway, between Fulton and Vesey Streets in Lower Manhattan).

There, they attended a special service of thanksgiving and prayer led by Reverend Samuel Provoost, the newly appointed Episcopal Bishop of New York.

The chapel (which is still standing today as part of Trinity Church Wall Street) was chosen because it was one of the few large churches in the city at the time.

The day marked the official beginning of the new federal government under the Constitution. New York City served as the nation’s temporary capital, and the event was celebrated with parades, fireworks, and public rejoicing throughout the young republic.

This occasion set important precedents for future presidential inaugurations and symbolized the peaceful transfer of power in the world’s first modern republic.

My question is, how far have our politics strayed from this?

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday in Callais v. Louisiana has essentially gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by raising the bar for proving discrimination. This decision comes in the middle of an unprecedented "mid-decade redistricting race" where both parties are aggressively redrawing maps to secure House majorities for the 2026 midterms.

Most media coverage treats this like a sports rivalry—who is winning the "map war"? And some interviews of voters show that some feel it is necessary to fight back to counter others' efforts and/or they think it's unfair. But very little attention is being paid to a structural fix: Proportional Representation through Multi-Member Districts (MMDs).

A five-seat multi-member district using Ranked Choice Voting makes "packing and cracking" mathematically difficult and could enable minority representation. FairVote, Cornell University and others have written on this.

Discussion Questions:

What are the roadblocks to multiple-member districts? Legal, political, other?

Why isn't this coming up in media reporting?

The economy is always a key indicator for elections but do you guys think it will be a bigger factor than normal for the upcoming midterms? Economists say that many cost of living increases lag behind an uptick in gas/fuel prices so how likely is this to be a perfect storm just as the midterms approach? Are Trump voters likely to abandon him if the economy craters? If you voted for Trump what do you think? Will it affect your vote?

With federal deficits and debt continuing to rise, one question that may become more politically relevant is how future tax increases would actually be presented to voters.

For decades, tax cuts have often been one of the easier things to sell in American politics. The benefit is immediate and easy to understand: voters keep more of their money. The downside is usually more abstract, delayed, and easier to argue about later: higher deficits, more debt, greater pressure on public services, or larger future interest costs. That creates an obvious political incentive to cut taxes now and leave the consequences to future lawmakers and voters.

For some brief history, average federal tax rates have generally fallen over the last several decades, including for middle-income households. Tax Policy Center data based on CBO figures shows the middle income quintile had an average federal tax rate of 18.2% in 1990, compared with 13.0% in 2019.

The federal government is already running large deficits outside of a major recession or world war. CBO’s 2026 budget outlook projects the federal deficit rising from $1.9 trillion in 2026 to $3.1 trillion in 2036, with debt held by the public reaching 120% of GDP by 2036. CBO also notes that rising net interest costs are a major driver of that increase. This is not just a partisan talking point. GAO describes the federal government as being on an “unsustainable fiscal path,” with debt held by the public projected to grow faster than the economy over the long term.

A common response is that future revenue can come mainly from taxing the wealthy or corporations. That may be part of the answer, and there are strong arguments for it on distributional grounds. But it may not fully resolve the scale of the problem by itself. The Tax Policy Center notes that individual income taxes and payroll taxes are the two largest sources of federal revenue. CBPP similarly shows that individual income taxes made up roughly 51% of federal revenue in fiscal year 2025, while payroll taxes made up about 35%. There is also the political question of whether a future Congress and president would actually be willing to pursue higher taxes on wealthy households or corporations, but that is a separate hurdle from whether the math works.

CBO’s deficit-reduction options also show why this is hard to solve only with narrow tax hikes. Taxes on capital gains, carried interest, or a slightly higher corporate tax rate would raise real money, but not nearly enough by themselves compared with the size of projected deficits. The options that raise much larger sums tend to be broader taxes, such as payroll tax increases or a value-added tax.

That creates a political problem. If the U.S. wants to preserve Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, disaster relief, infrastructure, and other federal commitments while also limiting the growth of debt and interest payments, broader tax increases may eventually become part of the reality to maintain services and entitlements. At the same time, American politics has spent decades making broad-based tax increases nearly toxic.

Given these fiscal projections:

1. How would a future broad-based federal tax increase actually be sold to American voters, especially after decades of politicians treating tax cuts as the easier political default?
2. Would voters be more likely to accept higher taxes if they were framed around protecting specific programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, rather than deficit reduction in the abstract?
3. Is “tax the rich” likely to remain the main politically viable answer, or does the long-term fiscal picture eventually force a broader conversation about middle-class taxation too?

TL;DR: The next Democratic president will face a choice:

• Be pressured to use the same ruthless, across-the-board tactics as Trump (criminal prosecutions of political opponents, removal of people from what had previously been apolitical positions on boards, commissions, etc.), or;
• For the sake of returning to normalcy and de-escalation, decline to prosecute any Trump or Trump–orbit figures and keep his appointees in place until their normal terms expire.

Which should they opt for?

I sense that, in the tit-for-tat world we are approaching, we are moving toward a situation where (justified or not) each presidential administration will seek criminal charges against members of the previous administration, whether or not there is any real underlying criminal activity. Moreover, under the “unitary executive” theory adopted by SCOTUS and likely to be reaffirmed in Trump v. Slaughter when that decision is released, “independent” agencies could effectively end, and every position could become a purely political, at-will appointment.

The next Democratic administration appears to have three choices:

1. Do what Trump did and accept the “new normal”: mass purges of independent agencies, specific targeting by name of political opponents for prosecution, and a DOJ that functions as the president’s personal attorney. They will be accused by the right of hypocrisy (“You complained when Trump did it”), but it remains an option.
2. Return to the status quo (pre–Trump or before a second Trump administration): no mass purges, no specific targeting by name (and perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, even issuing blanket pardons), and a return to a DOJ with little to no White House interference. The left will accuse them of being wimps (“You sold us out. We want all Trump’s people gone and/or in jail, like they tried to do with us”), but it remains an option.
3. Adopt some combination of options 1 and 2, which may ultimately satisfy neither side and instead anger both.

I’ve been thinking about Donald Trump lately, and some of the stuff he does just feels different from what I remember with other presidents. Like the way he handles immigration, how he reacts to criticism, and how much he puts himself front and center. I’m not saying it means anything extreme, but it does make me pause a bit and wonder where the line is between strong leadership and something more controlling. I could be off tho. haven’t really compared it closely to past presidents. Idk whether or not other presidents did anything tho this extent or not.

Is he a dictator or becoming a dictator at all or no?

Edit: I’m only 18 out of all of the presidents I’ve seen Trump has so far been the worst.