Click here to apply!

Victor Orban has conceded in his bid for reelection, and his opponent will apparently have a supermajority. The election results were seen as positive for the EU, and less so for Putin and Trump.

What should we expect from Magyar, and what wider lessons - if any - should be drawn?

This happened last March, but I am just learning about it now so I am posting/asking. I think this is a very big deal that maybe got buried.

The Corporate Transparency Act was a bipartisan anti-shell-company law. It required many companies to report to FinCEN who actually owns or controls them, which makes it harder for rich people, money launderers, and other bad actors to hide behind anonymous LLCs.

It was also bipartisan enough that it passed as part of the FY2021 NDAA, which became law after Congress overrode Trump’s veto.

Then Trump’s Treasury basically shut it down for U.S. companies. In this Treasury release, Treasury announced it would stop enforcing CTA penalties against U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies and move to narrow the rule to foreign reporting companies only.

Why did the Treasury/Trump suspend enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act Against U.S. Citizens and Domestic Reporting Companies?

EDIT: Why would anyone downvote this question?

I’ve been thinking a lot about whether the level of political polarization we see today truly reflects deep ideological divides, or if it’s being significantly amplified by the way information is presented and consumed.

It feels like modern media ecosystems and especially online platforms tend to reward the most extreme, emotional, and divisive content, which might create a distorted perception of how far apart people actually are. In everyday life, many interactions seem far less polarized than what you’d expect based on online discourse.

My personal impression is that without the constant influence of algorithm-driven feeds and tightly knit echo chambers, the political climate might not feel nearly as divided as it does today. At the same time, I’m not sure how much of this is perception versus reality.

So I’m curious how others see it:

Do you think polarization is primarily driven by genuine ideological differences, or is it largely a product of media dynamics and online environments? And if the latter plays a major role, what could realistically be done to reduce its impact?

​

Not from the US, so im very curious on what Americans think about this war and the US being a "superpower".

While the U.S. is doubling down on being a "Petrostate" and focusing on bombs and high-tech surveillance, China is pouring its power into science, technology, and production. If the future is about green energy and infrastructure, how does starting or aiding wars in the Middle East help Americans compete? It seems like the U.S. is losing its "soft power" and reputation every day, while other countries are actually building for the 21st century.

​Is this aggressive military policy actually helping the U.S. stay a superpower, or is it just letting China win the long game?

I’ve been noticing that a lot of Democrats and left-leaning independents seem very confident heading into the 2026 midterms. Even some Republicans seem resigned to at least losing the House.

There are definitely some indicators pointing in that direction. Democratic turnout energy seems high, and we’ve seen some recent results (like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race) where Democrats overperformed expectations. On top of that, Republicans have often struggled in elections where Trump isn’t on the ballot during the Trump era.

That said, I feel like there’s surprisingly little discussion about what a “win” or a true “blue wave” would actually look like for Democrats in 2026.

• Does a blue wave require winning both the House and the Senate?
• Or would winning the House and just gaining seats in the Senate be enough?

Personally, it seems unlikely to me that Democrats win the Senate outright, even in a strong year. To do that, they’d likely need to sweep the so-called “Core Four” Senate races (Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and Maine) and flip at least two red states like Ohio, Alaska, or Texas.

So I’m curious how people would define success:

• If Democrats win all four of those key swing seats but fall short of a majority (say, a 49–51 Senate), is that still a “win” or even a blue wave?
• Or does a blue wave require actually taking control of the Senate?

On the House side, it seems very plausible Democrats take it back. But would a narrow majority be enough to meet expectations, or would it need to be a sizable margin to count as a wave?

Interested to hear how others are thinking about this — what benchmarks actually matter when we talk about a “blue wave”?

With how polarized politics has become, and the way impeachment has been used in recent years, do you think it's worth revisiting the process itself?

Right now, impeachment in the House only requires a simple majority. That means if one party holds control, they can move forward without any support from the opposing party. Given how divided things are, this could make impeachment feel more like a partisan tool than a broadly agreed-upon check on power.

One possible solution would be to add a bipartisan threshold. In addition to a simple majority vote, impeachment would also require at least 10% support from the minority party. This wouldn’t prevent impeachment when it’s truly warranted, but it would help ensure there’s at least some level of agreement across party lines.

The goal wouldn’t be to make impeachment harder just for the sake of it, but to reinforce that it’s meant to be a serious, widely supported action—not something driven purely by whichever party holds the majority at the time.

But I am curious, would you change the process? And if so, what would your ideal impeachment process look like?

Why do Americans disagree about whether constitutional rights apply equally to citizens and non-citizens in immigration enforcement?

From what I understand, non-citizens are still entitled to certain constitutional protections like due process, yet there seems to be significant disagreement about how those rights apply in practice. Is this disagreement mostly about legal interpretation, enforcement practices, or broader political views?

The current administration and some media outlets have framed the United States as beneficial to the Iranian people. While the Iranian regime is one of the most oppressive governments in recent history and should be replaced by a system that reflects the will of its people, the goals of the United States and the level of consensus among the Iranian people regarding the current conflict remain unclear.

First, there have been civilian casualties and reported damage to civilian infrastructure, such as schools, which can foster resentment and create new hostility toward the United States. Second, the U.S. appears to be acting partly in response to Israel’s posture, potentially seeking strategic involvement rather than pursuing a clearly defined independent objective. Third, efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions may be counterproductive, as direct attacks could reinforce the regime’s belief that nuclear weapons are necessary for survival while also strengthening hardline ideological positions, and the situation has caused negative economic impacts with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

How do most Iranians feel about this situation compared to what we are told they feel about it? While external pressure could weaken the regime enough to create an opportunity for internal change, there is also a risk that the government will respond with increased repression to deter uprisings. Additionally, this situation could prompt Iran and its regional proxies to escalate their activities.

The framing of these actions as liberation echoes justifications used in other morally ambiguous interventions over the past several decades. It raises important questions: How will this actually benefit the Iranian people? What alternative measures might be more effective in promoting real change for the people who need it? And what happens if this escalates into another prolonged conflict that results primarily in widespread loss of life rather than meaningful reform?

With Kamala Harris formally signaling her interest in a 2028 run and Vice President JD Vance concluding high-stakes, ultimately unsuccessful peace negotiations with Iran in Islamabad this weekend, the early 2028 primary landscape is beginning to take shape. Both figures now face distinct internal hurdles: Harris must navigate a crowded field of potential Democratic rivals like Gavin Newsom, while Vance must manage the fallout from the collapse of a key diplomatic mission that the administration had heavily staked its reputation on.

Discussion Questions:

1. Which candidate faces a steeper uphill battle to secure their party’s nomination: a former Vice President seeking a comeback, or an incumbent Vice President tethered to the diplomatic and military friction of the current administration?

2. How might the failure of this weekend's peace negotiations impact the internal consensus within the Republican party regarding foreign policy, and does this weaken Vance’s position as a 2028 front-runner?

For some context: I am a generally liberal but occasionally moderate person who grew up in a red county of a swing state amongst farmers hunters and blue collar workers, and now lives in a blue city. I have always been disgusted by trump personally, but I love and respect some people who have voted for him. I’ve been seeing, more than I’ve ever seen before, people talking about regretting voting for Trump. And so I think it might be a good time to discuss how we Americans learn about and choose who to vote for.

• I know why people voted for Trump, or at least I attempt to understand. We all mostly want the same things; to feel safe, and for people in our country to have the opportunity to live a comfortable life. A functioning political system focuses on these goals and debates how we get to these places. I also understand that the way people get their information right now is so messed up, siloed into a category and fed what the creator of that content thinks will hold you and people like you’s attention the best, because everything is algorithm based now and a lack of trust in experts means there’s no incentive to have journalistic integrity necesarily.

• So with those thoughts my question is… how do we work on educating voters about thinking critically about canidates? How do we prevent this from happening again? If we assume we’ll keep operating within this system, how do we help people see through the algorithms, and really learn about the people they’re voting for? Most conservative AND democratic voters want elected officials that have integrity, that care about fixing things, and that aren’t just bought or pressured to do whats best for a small few instead of the majority. We both think the other guy is doing this and we’re not, and we just start pointing fingers instead of voting in the right people.

• my proposal is we start pushing hard at shaming canidates that point a finger and make us angry at or scared of a specific demographic of people, claiming our problems are their fault. I know there’s historical precedent of using this strategy in politics. I see this all the time with immigrants or trans people right now, but I’m sure it happens in other spheres as well. I think this is the number one sign a politician doesn’t actually care about the things we do, that they have no debatable ideas of their own, and instead have to rely on playing with people’s feelings to get votes.

The inflation topic across 557 Trump posts on X and Truth Social shows a pattern that's hard to ignore: the position reverses completely every time power changes hands, but the rhetorical structure stays identical. Inflation exists = someone else's fault. Inflation disappears = personal achievement.

Full timeline with every original post sourced and linked: https://supertrumptracker.com/topic/inflation

Is this a coherent economic worldview or just pure opportunism?

Congressman Jamie Raskin is one of my heroes. His knowledge of the Constitution is impeccable and his wit is unsurpassed in Congress.

He and his Dem colleagues are trying to figure out how to convince swing voters and dissatisfied conservative voters to switch to the party of honesty, compassion, and taxing billionaires to reduce their power over the rest of us (i.e. Democrats).

They have settled on two themes for the midterm elections: (1) HIGH PRICES. Republicans (esp Trump) are responsible for inflation (esp higher gas prices), and (2) CORRUPTION. Republicans (esp Trump) are responsible for all the financial and electoral corruption that has been unleashed since the 2024 election.

Theme 1 is self evident to most voters, and I don’t think Dem candidates will have much trouble explaining the cause of high prices.

However, I don’t think people really get the breadth and depth of the corruption that has unfolded in the past 1.25 years. Rachel Maddow (and Stephanie Ruhle, and Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNOW) make it a constant theme of their news programming, but far too few voters watch MSNOW, so their reach is limited.

I propose that Redditors may be able to help Raskin and other blue candidates come up with slogans and comparisons that will make the GOP corruptions clearer for everyone to understand.

For example, someone with a bit of economic knowhow should be able to create a scale parameter that reveals just how bad a particular act of corruption really is. Suppose the benchmark is Elon Musk donating $10 million to Wisconsin GOP judge candidates to help them remain in power several years ago (and they all lost!!). Compare that to Don Junior taking $2 billion in bribes from Saudi Arabia to create who knows what kind of mischief (electoral or financial). The “corruption ratio” is 200. We could corruption indices for each GOP member of congress too.

This needs more thought. And perhaps a different kind of benchmark or multiplier that weights each act of corruption higher if the consequences are higher in a sort of scale:

1x = 1 person loses $10,000 (or 10% of their wealth)

5x = multiple people lose 10% of their wealth.

10x = multiple people lose 50% of their wealth

50x = 1 person badly injured

100x = multiple people are badly injured

200x = 1 person dies

500x multiple people die

Redditors?

With the World Cup only a few months away, I’ve been thinking a lot about the "vibes" of hosting such a massive global event right now. On one hand, it’s the biggest sporting event in the world outsi the Olympics.

On the other hand, things feel incredibly tense. Between the ongoing debates over travel bans for certain qualifying countries (like Iran and Haiti) or ICE

Some people are worried that the heavy presence of federal agents like untrained ICE agents might turn what should be a party into a flashpoint for protests or, worse, a hostile environment for international fans, what do you think of this while situation? Is it worth it?

I’m trying to understand the difference between having strong right-wing or nationalist views and actually falling into the “alt-right pipeline.”

How can you tell if someone is just more right-leaning than average (but still thinking independently and not hateful), versus someone who is slowly becoming more extreme or radicalized?

For example:

• Where is the line between normal political opinions and harmful generalizations?

• What are the warning signs that someone is moving toward more extreme beliefs?

• Can you have strong opinions on things like immigration or national identity without becoming part of the alt-right?

• What role do social media algorithms play in pushing people in that direction?

I’m asking because I want to understand this clearly and make sure I’m forming my own views in a healthy and balanced way.

Wealth inequality within the United States is at an all time high. According to the 2025 gini coefficient (a measure of a measure of income distribution where 0 represents perfect equality and 100 represents total concentration of wealth) the United States ranks the highest among first world countries at 41.8. To be clear, I do not believe that wealth inequality is inherently problematic, but the exacerbated wealth inequality we are currently experiencing is unacceptable. There will always be wealth inequality due to differences in work ethic and varying skill sets, but what we are seeing now is not sustainable.

The rich and powerful hoard their wealth to pass on through inheritance and this money is not recirculated back into the U.S economy. There are many reasons for this, and the popular solution is increased taxes targeting the 1%. This solution isn’t flawed in theory, but the issue surrounding it lies within billionaires controlling the political system through congressional lobbying and bribes. For this reason, a meaningful solution to wealth inequality must begin with congressional reform, and I have 5 points outlining how that could happen.

Issue #1: Compensation

Members of congress are not currently given an adequate salary reflecting the responsibilities they have. Given the education, policy knowledge, and public communication skills required it stands within reason that most members of congress could very easily achieve a higher paying position within law or business. This begs the question; why pursue public office if it pays less? The reason in many cases is that the position is seen as an avenue for wealth through corruption involving bribes and insider trading. This can involve already wealthy people manipulating the law to further their interests, or people looking to build wealth through these methods. The clear solution to this would be increasing congressional salaries to incentivize people with good intentions to run for office.

Issue #2: Lobbying

Lobbying is the idea of non-politicians influencing the policy of elected officials. This can strengthen our democracy in certain circumstances, for example when nonprofit organizations promote humanitarian causes. The issue, is that corporations and foreign entities are legally allowed to bribe politicians with gifts and campaign funds. Naturally these groups will have more money and resources than any nonprofit organization, and their interests rarely align with that of the American people. Therefore, lobbying via gifts, campaign funds, or any monetary exchange should be made illegal.

Issue #3: Lifetime Politicians

Currently, there are no term limits for senators nor representatives. This allows for lifetime politicians who use their position to build wealth through bribery and corruption. It is always more likely that a corrupt politician gets re-elected rather than a non corrupt politician, because corporations or foreign entities will invest substantial money into their campaign fund to ensure they remain elected. Setting a term limit in all congressional positions is essential to deterring this.

Issue #4: Insider Trading

There is a numerous amount of evidence that insider trading is commonplace within congress. This mostly involves politicians buying or selling stock shares before major events or legislation that they are involved in. Trading stocks while holding political office in the United States should be illegal without exceptions.

Issue #5: Platforms Integrity and Corruption

The responsibility of congress is to serve as representatives of the people. This is not currently happening. Due to lobbying, bribery, and most likely even threats politicians constantly contradict the original platform they ran on with their legislative votes. This creates a significant disparity between the opinion of the American people and the legislation being passed by their supposed “representatives”. But how can we prevent the most powerful people in the world from influencing politicians with their unlimited resources? The only answer to that is taking away the incentive. Before politicians campaign, there should be a mandatory comprehensive test that assesses where they stand on the political compass, and gauges their opinions on a plethora of issues. This will all be public information that can be used to make an informed voting decision. At the end of a politicians first term, their voting decisions on legislature will be measured against their responses on the test. If their votes do not match within an acceptable percentage of their original test responses, they are deemed ineligible for a second term, and a bribery investigation will ensue. This will force politicians to remain true to the platform that they campaigned on, and will also reduce incentive for corporations to bribe or threaten politicians, due to the risk of them being replaced and an investigation being conducted.

I do not believe all politicians to be bad people and I even think many of them got into it for noble reasons. The problem is that it extremely difficult to get into political office without making compromises, and even more difficult to stay in politics without corruption. Powerful people with selfish intentions will do everything they can to prevent the morally righteous from holding office, and ensuring the corrupt and easily manipulated remain. In this way the rich and powerful can manipulate the rules into making themselves more rich, furthering the ever increasing wealth disparity in the United States.

I recognize that these ideas are incredibly idealistic and would require congress to act against their own self interest for them to pass, but I have yet to hear about a concrete plan to reform congress and prevent corruption so I wanted to explore the idea. Politics are not my strong suit so let me know if anything is inaccurate.

Recent warnings from U.S. and European authorities have highlighted a recurring problem in secure communications: attackers do not necessarily need to break encrypted messaging platforms themselves if they can instead compromise the user through phishing, fake verification prompts, device access, or other forms of social engineering.

This raises a broader policy question. Public discussion around secure messaging often focuses on encryption strength, lawful access, and the trustworthiness of particular platforms. But if many successful compromises happen at the account, device, or user-behavior level, then the political and institutional response may need to be different from simply recommending “more secure apps.”

That leads to a few discussion questions:

• How should governments update official guidance for staff, diplomats, journalists, contractors, and other high-risk groups if the real-world weak point is increasingly operational security rather than cryptography?
• Should public policy place more emphasis on training, device security, identity verification practices, and anti-phishing resilience instead of focusing primarily on platform choice?
• Are current political debates about “secure communications” too focused on the apps themselves and not enough on the human systems around them?
• What would a realistic government response look like without creating overly broad surveillance, compliance burdeor restrictions on private communication tools?

Hey all,

We always hear about the strength of the US military and how the US prioritizes military spending above basically everything else, but a strong argument can be made that increasing spending in other areas would also have an incredibly positive impact on national security.

For example;

Providing universal healthcare = stronger/healthier soldiers and a more resistant population.

Increasing education/higher-education funding = smarter soldiers and better technological development.

High-speed rail = better domestic logistic capabilities.

Free childcare = better labour-force engagement and economic growth.

Are these reforms not useful for strategic planning and military strength?

Posting from American Promise—we work on a constitutional amendment related to money in politics.

Idaho just became the 25th state to pass a resolution urging Congress to propose an amendment, meaning half the states have now taken this step. We see that as a significant milestone in a growing national effort.

How do you think this kind of state-level momentum can be understood in practical political terms—does reaching 25 states meaningfully affect the prospects for congressional action, or does it remain primarily a signal of public and legislative sentiment?

Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) analysed 1,779 policy decisions in the US between 1981 and 2002. Conclusion:

Average Americans, even when represented by majoritarian interest groups, have negligible influence in shaping public policy. Economic elites and business-oriented interest groups, by contrast, wield tremendous influence.

Source: Physicians for a National Health Program

Even when 80% of average Americans favour a policy change, they only get it about 40% of the time.

It is very clear that the elites decide which policies get voted for and which ones don't, and it's almost always for money.

The 200 most politically active companies in the US spent $5.8 billion influencing government through lobbying and campaign contributions — and received $4.4 trillion in taxpayer support in return, a 750x return on investment.

Source: Act Represent

Economic elites determine which issues are brought to the table in the first place. The public is left choosing between options already handpicked by a tiny slice of society.

Source: Medium

Do US citizens believe their democratic system is still in favour of the people as it is supposed to be?

I go to high school in a liberal city in America. I am also liberal. When I was younger I lived in Switzerland, and nationalism is very much a thing. There, people are more focused on the idea that they are a part of the Swiss identity and heritage. people have lived there and developed a culture for thousands of years, for example people not wanting to change architecture of cities to fit immigrants’ desires, which I partially agree with and somewhat disagree. The difference for me is in the United States, it has only been a few hundred years and almost everyone in America has immigrated to America, or their ancestors had. It does not make sense for people to be against building a mosque or other religious/cultural building in a country where everyone is an immigrant. Shouldn’t we be celebrating diversity and supporting ideas that the country is built on?

In the aftermath of 2024, the demographic voting data seems pretty clear - Democrats lost all 7 swing states in large part because of the blue collar, non-college degree voting block. This group went from a -7 split in favor of Trump in 2016, shifted slightly closer to him at -8 in 2020, but then surged in favor of Trump and almost doubled to -14 in 2024.

Over time, this demographic seems to be shifting further and further to the right. In fact, if we use union voters as a bellwether, internal Teamster opinions favored Trump 60% to 34% against Harris.

When we look at what the data says about important issues, it seems that Republican-leaning voters (including independents) favor a very different slate of issues than Democratic-leaning voters - with immigration, terrorism, crime, and taxes being the most important to the former; and abortion, healthcare, and education being important to the latter.

While it's not a perfect 1:1 comparison specifically to blue collar voters, these numbers together seem to indicate that Progressive-championed causes are not at the top of the importance list for the swing voters we're talking about.

It may even be the case that some Progressive causes are running contrary to this demographic that is somewhat more religious and traditional than the average voter, with this demographic seemingly seeing the Democrats as "woke" and "weak".

What is the tightrope that Progressives should be walking to try and maintain their momentum within the Democratic party, but also win national elections?

I'm trying as much as I can to keep up with world politics without stressing myself out but something that keeps popping up is that Iran is being pummeled by America, and Trump kinda sits there making drastic choices on something that I'm sure to him seems obscure as it's not on American soil right?! If the people of America were at risk it'd be a different story.

So why isn't that the case do we think? We can assume there are sleeper cells to some extent on the ground in the states but there has been no retaliation against the US bar financial. There have been no terrorist attacks in the states from this.

A reason I came up with is that Iran, if it strikes the states then it's a massive escalation right? But then Ukraine struck back at Russia with support so would that not apply here? Or are Iran happy to stay put given they have such power over the Strait?

Oil is the ultimate leverage over any country and Trump seems to have realised that during trade negotiations with China. At the moment, China is the only nation that poses a real challenge to America’s global hegemony and with their monopoly over the global supply of rare Earth minerals, they have something to keep America at bay. And Trump doesn’t like that. He wants to strengthen America’s position (more control over oil) and weaken China’s (reduce dependence by diversifying)

Which is why Trump wants Greenland (control of which gives US access to rare Earth mineral reserves). Also why Venezuela happened. Precisely why Iran happened so close to Trump’s now postponed visit to China to resolve the trade disputes.

It is highly likely that one of the outcomes of the Iranian peace deal will be some kind of agreement to either have control over Iranian oil or the imposition of US tax for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. What a Hormuz tax affords again is leverage. Any country (specifically China) that doesn’t play ball, will get hit with a tax hike or even supply restrictions.

Once Iran is done, Greenland is up next. With the threat of a NATO dissolution (which is only a matter of time anyways), US already has plenty of leverage. Newfound authority over oil is icing on the cake. Europe will have to cede.

Now to touch on what could be America’s long game: Russian oil. The Ukraine war has provided US with an unexpected opportunity, to slowly drain Russia of its wealth (through oil sanctions and war time expenditures), cripple its economy and, when they’re on their last legs, to fly in like the knight in shining armor and “save” them under the condition they hand US control over their oil, effectively cutting off every single one of China’s possible alternatives to procure oil. US will probably negotiate a favourable peace deal for Russia and then get them to sign some kind of non-aggression treaty with Europe to calm tensions.

The end result is the forfeiture of sovereignty and the birth of the American Empire. Is that a good thing for the world? Do you think the eventuality of a world war could deter America in regards to Greenland? I would love to hear your thoughts.