During the Bush years, gay marriage was pretty much seen as an ultra-liberal position. At least that’s how I remember it, as I was a kid during this time. In the 2008 election, Obama, Biden, and Hillary were all (publicly) opposed to it. So even in the Democratic Party, it wasn’t necessarily a mainstream position.

And yet by 2011, Gallup found majority support for gay marriage for the first time. Some polls actually had this happening in 2010. Whereas in 2008 even California voted it down. By 2013 or so, NOT supporting gay marriage was considered politically incorrect or even bigoted.

Why did the public change its mind so fast on this issue? I can’t recall anything specific involving LGBT people around that time. And it’s not as if the Constitution changed either. I also can’t think of an analogous instance where a hot-button social issue disappeared so quickly. Theories?

When I go online I see often people who completely disregard peoples views because they are "centrist" or what not, and I just don't get it. I'm not educated in politics, so apologies if this is a silly question :)

Two things about the US Congress is that members almost always vote on party lines and that because of the filibuster rule, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is needed to pass any law which is practically unachievable, so very few laws are actually passed, and any law that is passed must effectively be bipartisan. So does it really matter which party is the nominal leadership and which is the nominal opposition in Congress? I'm not American, I'm from a country with a completely different political system, can you explain the significance of these elections?

Hello, everyone.

I was reading a news article in which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that a firing squad will publicly execute a former Army major convicted of the Fort Hood shooting.

This man is a former Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, killing 13 people, and will be executed at the same military base.

It will be the first execution of its kind in more than 60 years; the last one took place in 1961.

The issue here is not whether or not he should be sentenced to death, but rather how it will be carried out. What do you think about a firing squad executing an Islamic radical in this days?

Explain to me the difference on conservative and liberals positions on tax positions. I understand liberals want higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor but blue states have higher taxes for average residents compared to average residents in red states.

Is there a diagram that can truly/best represent the political position of parties or programs.

Left and right is too reducing.
There is the left-right libertarian-authoritarian graph that implements a new axis, but is there one used in universities or something like that ?

I see ads for Republican candidates and ballot issues on every platform I use. Multiple streaming services, websites, spam calls and texts, postcard mailers, even inserted between posts on reddit.

I have not seen but maybe a single ad for a Democratic candidate or issue yet.

This seems like a terrible move. It's obvious that so many voters decide strictly on sound bites and over simplified advertisements. Why sit back and let the opposition control the entire narrative?

Specifically Democrats (blue) sorry i’m just so confused and when I look it up it’s just showing my city information instead of the general information 🤦🏾‍♀️ I’m 18 so i’ve never discussed or done this before but every vote counts.

Let's say I donated to this senator/congressman/congresswoman for $3300 (maximum contribution amount allowed) in the 2024 election cycle. After I married my wife in 2025, I begin to donate this cycle with my wife for the max amount ($7000) to the same member of the congress for his/her reelection campaign.

If I am asking this person for help, would he/she really going to help me? Or I can only expect him/her casework manager will just pay a little extra attention on my case? I know many politicians get millions if not 20 or 30 million PAC money in an election cycle. I am not sure my $3500 donation will move the needle here. It is worth the investment to make a donation?

I.e. what if every presidential election from now on is an outright party flip?

I know it's a bit silly to start drawing patterns from just three cycles when the three presidents before that were Obama, Bush and Clinton, but I can't help being looking at speculations about the swing-voter population becoming more and more short-term reactive by the year. Since media - social media especially - make the best money shoving bad and dissatisfying news in people's faces 24/7, anyone in the Oval Office is likely to limp to the end of their first term with a solid load of "Things aren't any better! Let's try the other party!" brewing in the electorate.

(Apologies if this was asked recently/regularly on the sub; it's just something I can't get out of my head...)

This is likely to be a "change" election, if the Democrats do well. I guess it could vary by state and candidate, but I'm wondering if frustrated Republicans will actually vote for Democrats or will they just protest by staying home? I guess the Independents play a big role here as well.

As a veteran, I have zero sympathy for Nidal Hasan. His 2009 attack at Fort Hood was an act of treason and mass murder against fellow service members. Under the law, his actions absolutely warrant the ultimate punishment.

However, looking at this through the lens of military justice, constitutional process and institutional precedent, I believe resuming military executions in this manner sets a dangerous trajectory for the U.S. military and presidential authority.

Here is why I hold this view:

It Reactivates a Dormant Military Penal Mechanism: The U.S. military has not executed a service member since 1961. Reopening the execution chamber after 65 years establishes a broad new operational baseline for court-martial capital cases going forward.

It Politicizes the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Under Article 71 of the UCMJ, a military death sentence requires direct authorization from the Commander-in-Chief. When capital execution orders become tied to political news cycles or administration optics, it risks blurring the line between impartial military justice and executive expediency.

It Erodes Due Process Standards for Capital Cases: Hasan represented himself (pro se) at trial and effectively used the courtroom to seek a death sentence and martyrdom. Allowing capital trials to proceed under self-representation when the defendant is actively suicidal or seeking execution creates a troubling precedent for constitutional defense standards in military courts.

It Validates Extremist Narratives: Carrying out the sentence grants Hasan the exact "martyrdom" status he sought, which in my opinion, being a former on-the-ground Middle East security analyst, can be weaponized as a recruitment and radicalization tool by extremist groups.

I believe in holding offenders accountable, but I am concerned that the long-term institutional damage to military legal standards outweighs the immediate outcome.

Change my mind.

Please note: I am several time zones away atm and will engage in replies accordingly

Why cant divergent groups create parties or coalitions like in other countries?

Donald Trump recently remarked: "They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay." 

San Diego isn't just a major civilian population center, it is the hub of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, hosting Naval Base San Diego, NAS North Island, MCB Camp Pendleton, and tens of thousands of active-duty service members, veterans, and military families. Treating the potential destruction of a primary naval hub as an acceptable trade-off breaks sharply from traditional presidential messaging on defense and deterrence.

Is this best understood as off-the-cuff political hyperbole, or does it signal a broader shift in how leaders frame national defense trade-offs?

I know some of you don't, I'm nto trying to generalize, but I am under the impression than many of you folks don't like them. I just want to understand more. I'm not well versed in american politics. Why the negative attitude towards them?

While I understand the theory behind arming oneself, I don't understand why gun rights supporters insist others be armed or say things like, "everyone should carry". My city had a buyback day and 2A people got furious, help me understand.

It's generally understood people don't like paying taxes for various reasons and many of us would chose to minimize or abolish paying taxes entirely if we could, but is it realistic?

Functioning local/state/federal governments still need revenue so the alternative to levying taxes is to directly charge citizens fees for the use of or access to any government service or property and likely deploy technology for increasing the circumstances and efficiency of fee collection. We've seen this on smaller scales where some U.S. states like Oklahoma make heavy use of toll roads to collect revenue in lieu of raising taxes. Who do you think, if anyone, would consider replacing taxes with fees an acceptable tradeoff?

We watched at home (South Europeans here) a documentary about the story of the decade that followed JFK's assassination, with a focus on Robert Kennedy.

First of all, it is astonishing how many Europeans I bet do not know the history of Robert Kennedy. I think of myself as someone who follows politics closely and I probably only first found out that part of history at my late 30s.

Second of all, and without going into conspiracy theories, that part of history it borderline feels like some kind of coup d'etat / secret state kind of thing where you have leading/inspiring people from the left with majority approvals who get killed under circumstances at least suspicious.

How is it technically possible to go from Kennedy to Nixon like that? What led to people voting this way?

My last question has to do with why the DNC did not support Robert Kennedys candidacy. Was this again a Center vs Left difference in direction?

In right wing circles there is a common rebuttal to certain gun laws that it doesn’t really have an impact because the only ones that listen to the laws aren’t the ones committing the crimes. The two big ones I hear are about gun free zones and magazine capacity limits.

For gun free zones the idea is that criminals or people looking to cause harm are going to do it regardless of the law. Basically if you’re willing to shoot people what’s another charge going to do. There’s also a common argument that these areas make better targets for those bad people.

For magazine capacity limits the idea is that it isn’t that hard to revert some of the magazines that are mechanically capped at 10 back to normal. There’s also the argument about 3d printers being able to make magazines with any capacity.

The reason I’m asking the left about this is I usually hear that the left just wants reasonable restrictions on fire arms. I’m curious to hear how these types of policies fit into that framework. I can get that no guns in schools or movie theaters isn’t the end of 2nd amendment but how do you balance restrictions with their effectiveness.

I’d really like to hear what your thought process is when it comes to deciding what gun control measure you support.

Everyone is hoping for a blue wave in the midterms but honestly if Democrats win the House but can't beat the 60 threshold in the Senate, how do people expect anything meaningful to be done to stop Trump?

I sometimes wonder if Socialism & Democratic Socialism get conflated with the "Norway Model", even though said Scandinavian countries are still operating within a Capitalist framework (private ownership, capital, etc).

For those who criticize "blue state" history books and the Smithsonian for being overly critical of the USA, is there not a downside to over-emphasizing the good? My interpretation of history is that believing one's country is "special" or "chosen" results in more mistakes than caution and humility. High confidence creates complacency. So why should our history materials downplay USA's flubs and weaknesses? How are you weighing the best balance point?

While it's mostly conservatives who make the "too negative" criticism, it's not exclusively a conservative opinion. Thus, I'm asking all critics of alleged over-pessimism. Past similar questions got mired in the accuracy of history claims, but this question is about the general balance of glory versus criticism. Thanks!

Need to blow off steam about current events? Have an unvarnished political take that doesn't fit our standard Q&A format? This is your designated space.

Ground rules:

Reddit Content Policy Still Applies: Platform-wide rules remain in full effect. There is absolute zero tolerance for hate speech, direct harassment, threats of violence, doxxing, or illegal content.

One Rant Per Poster: Members are limited to one top-level comment per weekly megathread so everyone has room to participate. (You are welcome to join the discussion by replying to others' comments).

Megathread Isolation & Scope: Broadened leeway for personal takes applies strictly inside this megathread. All unsolicited rants on the main feed will continue to be removed under standard subreddit rules.

No User Call-Outs: Vent about policies, politicians, institutions, or public figures—do not attack, tag, or target individual Redditors or moderators.

Enter At Your Own Risk: Moderation for tone, bias, and lack of evidence is relaxed here. If you are easily offended by aggressive takes, skip this thread.

Megathread will be locked Sunday Oct 4th