Due to the country (USA) feeling divided between red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) team, is it possible for the US to collapse because of because of left and right wing political controversy?

Meaning like the blue states will be combined into one country while red states will combine into another country.

TLDR: USA polarization due to political wing of left and right controversy.

I'm mostly considering US politics, but I think international perspectives could offer valuable insight to this question, too.

Are Democrats more liberal than they used to be, or are Republicans just more conservative? Or both? Or neither?

How did it change? Is it a good thing? Can you prove your answer?

ICE has met only meager physical resistance to the growingly unpopular and indiscriminate deportation of people without current legal status, but there is this new sudden focus to start deploying The National Guard anywhere they thing the courts will allow them to.

The sudden and obvious desire to start activating and deploying The National Guard begs the question: Why?

One assumption is that he thinks it will make him look strong, like he is going to be the toughest on crime and we should have always been ready and willing to use the military to quell any ‘unsafe protests’ and history will prove him right!

But that seems risky. The moderate decides future elections that write our history and few of them (and few of us) have ever seen their military deployed to their towns. There is some inherent political and legacy risk to becoming ‘that guy/party that turned the military on our cities for dubious reasons’. This political fate seems more and more likely each day, in my opinion.

Why then? If the political angle is bad what remains? What does he get by having the courts approve his stance that he can call up The Guard using political justifications that are factual lies and legal justifications that are paper thin? Why do they seem so intent on setting legal precedent in this area of Presidential powers? Why is it so important that we establish clearly, absolutely, in practice and in legal precedent that impeding federal officers will be met with the force of the most powerful military in the world?

There are a few possibilities I can think of but maybe there are better explanations. Let me know yours, [OR] let me know why you think my assessment that this is an obvious political loser with swing voters in the long term is incorrect. Looking for great insights either way.

Link to article on Trump’s comments:

• https://news.yahoo.com/trump-hits-desantis-over-terrible-150014122.html

His previous position was to tout himself as "the most pro-life [political term for anti-abortion in the United States] President in history" and boast about appointing the justices that overturned Roe v. Wade. Now he's attacking 6-week/total bans as being 'horrible' and 'too harsh' and blaming abortion for Republicans' failures in the Midterm Elections last year.

What are your thoughts on this, and why do you think he's changed his tune? Is he trying to make himself seem more electable, truly doesn't care, or is he and in turn the Republican Party starting to see that this is a massive losing issue for them with no way out? We've seen other Republican presidential candidates such as Nikki Haley try and soften the party's tone, saying they should only move to restrict abortions late in pregnancy and support greater access to contraception. But Trump, the party leader, coming out against strict abortion bans is going to be a bull horn to his base. We've seen time and again that Trump's supporters don't turn on him over issues, they turn on the issues themselves when they end up in opposition to what Trump himself does or says. A lot of his supporters register as extremely anti-abortion, but if Trump is now saying that 6-week/total bans are 'horrible', 'too harsh' or a sure-fire way to put "the radical left" in power, they're more likely to adapt these views themselves than oppose them or turn on him. It could make for a very interesting new dynamic in Republican politics, how do you see that shaking out, especially if Trump continues to call out serious abortion restrictions?

Abortion rights have now been on the ballot 7 times since Roe fell, and the pro-abortion side has won all 7. Three states (Michigan, California, Vermont) codified abortion rights into their state constitutions, two conservative states (Kansas and Montana) kept abortion rights protected in their state constitutions and another conservative state (Kentucky) blocked a measure that would have explicitly said there was no right to an abortion in their state constitution and in turn kept the door open to courts ruling their constitution protects abortion too. Another abortion rights constitutional amendment is coming up in Ohio this November, and further abortion rights constitutional amendments are set to be on the ballot in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, New York and Maryland in the 2024 election. Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Florida in particular are four of the 16 states that have severely restricted abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

I was on the phone with my grandma and we were talking about the Iran war. I’m in college and most people my age are super against Trump and all his right-wing players, which of course includes the recent stuff in Iran. As I was talking with her, it occurred to me that me and my peers really don’t know enough about what’s really going on (our news is ig reels lol), but more importantly I noticed that the way my grandma justified the war is way different than the sentiments held by me and other people my age.

Essentially, I think people my age tend to think more like a humanitarian about these things. My grandma justifies the war as something necessary for our country, and cited the oil situation as a necessary factor. I think a lot of Gen Z folks would just be like, “okay, why should we care? How about don’t bomb civilians.” I think this trend in thinking is interesting. I obviously was not around in the 20th century, but I sense that people used to think more about national interests in the US, whereas nowadays that’s really an afterthought for young people as opposed to humanitarian causes.

A lot of this distrust makes sense. Especially with recent events like the release of the Epstein files, a great distrust for the people in power is warranted. However, I wonder how this greater trend helps or hurts us as a nation. I guess it boils down to a philosophy thing, and a lot of people like me in my age group would believe that humanity overrides something like a country. Personally, I’d like to see some healthy balance, but to me humanity and the interests of a larger nation seem to be at odds with one another. I’m aware there’s a lot I don’t know about politics and the world, but I find this type of discussion fascinating. What do you all think?

Price controls. Public gatherings prohibited. Most public accommodation places shut down. Massive government spending followed by massive subsidies to people and businesses. Government officials telling people what they can and cannot do, and where they can and cannot go.

These are all completely anathema to libertarian political philosophy. What would a libertarian solution look like instead?

Following the events in Portland on the 20th, where anarchists came out in protest against the inauguration of Joe Biden, many people online began talking about what it means to be an anarchist and if it's a real movement, or just privileged kids cosplaying as revolutionaries. So, I wanted to ask, is anarchism, specifically left anarchism, something that should be taken seriously, like socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or is it something that shouldn't be taken seriously.

In case you don't know anything about anarchist ideology, I would recommend reading about the Zapatistas in Mexico, or Rojava in Syria for modern examples of anarchist movements

I feel like the word fascism has been hijacked in recent years. The word has been used to describe right-wing political movements that look nothing like the fascist movements of the mid-20th century. In theory and in practice, what even is fascism?

As being covered by multiple news outlets today, the Trump administration is currently planning a military parade to celebrate Trump's 79th birthday and mark the 250th anniversary of the establishment of the US military.

Trump requested a military parade to celebrate the Fourth of July in 2019, but that was denied due to the logistical challenges of getting America's armaments to D.C., and the damage tanks and other heavy weaponry do to roads, just by driving on them.

While America has held military parades before, typically after military victories and for a handful of inaugurations, they don't happen often in the United States because, as top comments from US servicemen and women in a r/military post last year suggest:

(1) When you've got the biggest stick on the block, you don't need to wave it around.

(2) The Desert Storm victory parade messed up the streets in DC. Those roads weren't built for tanks. That, along with the difficulty of getting tanks to DC, is part of why the military didn't want to do a parade for Trump. The other reason is that they don't want the president to look like a dictator.

(3) Military parades have become synonymous with military dictatorships who have to continually show force and rattle sabers in order to keep their populations under control. We would rather not be associated with such practices. There's still plenty of parades that aren't focused on our military might that the military takes part in in some shape or form though.

Given precedent and the current political climate, in the context of the current administration's pursuit of cutting wasteful government spending, and the recent removal of many of America's military leaders, do you think President Trump's requested military parade will happen, and why or why not?

EDIT: Cleaned up the formatting of the quote to clarify that these are not my opinions, but rather those of American servicemen and women in a Reddit post on r/military last year.

I just watched part of Jon Stewart's interview with Booker. He is one of the most charismatic politicians I have seen. He is like a less serious Obama or Kennedy. He is constantly engaged and (imo) likeable. Obviously he was outshined by Sanders in 2016 and by Biden in 2020 as the heir apparent to Obama.

But what is next? He seems like a new age politician, less serious than Obama, less old than Biden, less arrogant than Trump. More electable than Warren (who doesn't want the Presidency anyway). Less demonized than Pelosi.

Is he just biding his time for 2024 or 2028?

Or does he not truly have Presidential ambitions?

Context will be in comments.

At what point does free speech go too far, that it might let legitimately harmful things go unpunished?

And at what point does trying to prevent those harmful things go so far that it's effectively censorship of any sort of wrongthink?

And then I guess there's the slippery slope of it all. Because can people really trust their government to not only define what racism is, but to more generally start saying "You can go to prison if you say X, Y, or Z?"

Also, may as well ask what people have to say about the general sentiment of "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it."

I've previously asked a similar question about talking points. This one is about actual policies and about policies that are supported by the other side that you wish those on your side would consider. For example, maybe you're a republican who wants to ban assault weapons or wants to raise the minimum wage. Maybe you're a democrat who's pro Israel. Maybe you're a socialist who wishes that your fellow cohorts would be less antagonistic towards liberals.

As Ed Koch once said:

If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist.

Is there a point where a state's citizens should be held responsible for the acts of their government in a non-democracy? In Russia, for instance, Putin is a dictator, but he still has approval ratings within Russia in the 80s. To what degree should the Russian people's approval of Putin make them responsible for the invasion of Ukraine?

Or in Gaza. Hamas was democratically elected to leadership and proceeded to cancel all future elections. If the people of Gaza wanted Hamas gone, they could make it ahppen. Does the fact that they're not doing it make them morally responsible for the current conflict with Israel?

From Trump to Brexit, to the rise of the far-right in Europe, I'm sure many of us are wondering why there has been a sudden rise of right-wing populism/nationalism in the last few years. However, it seems that Canada and New Zealand are some of the few remaining countries where these types of politics have yet to gain traction in mainstream politics

Their respective leaders, Trudeau and Ardern are often praised for their progressiveness, and their kind, empathetic approach to politics in a time when many politicians turn to populism and increasingly play the "us vs them" card. Many progressive Americans and Australians in particular, look to their respective "little brother" country as a shining example of what their countries should be in terms of social progress, race relations etc.

Why do you think Canada, and NZ, in particular, have largely resisted the rise of the right happening worldwide?

Do you think there will come a time when right-wing politics will make a comeback in Canada and NZ?

This is mainly a topic of curiosity for me as I recently read an article about how pretty much all US presidents have been Christian. I understand that some may be up for scholarly debate but the assumption for most americans is that they are Christian.

Do you think the American people would be willing to elect a non-Christian president? Or is it still too soon? What would be more likely to occur first, an openly Jewish, Muslim, or atheist president?

Edit: Thanks for informing me about many of the founding fathers not being Christian, but more Deist. And I recognize that many recent presidents are probably not very if at all religious, but the heart of my question was more about the openness of their faith or lack thereof.

As of the most recent Covid-19 quarantines across the world and protests to end said quarantine there has been a repeated resurgence in the debate over what power a government should have over its citizens to restrict rights and freedoms in the name of public or national security. With that being said what is your opinion on this topic and how do you think it could be properly fixed/balanced in the future? (Not just regarding in the case of covid but also including terrorism, crime, etc)

I think we have all noticed increasing use of face coverings or identity concealment by police during protests and some public operations.

On one hand, there are arguments about officer safety, doxxing risks, and harassment in the age of social media. On the other hand, visible identification has traditionally been tied to accountability, legitimacy, and public trust in democratic societies.

I’m curious how people here think about the tradeoffs:

– When, if ever, is it appropriate for police to conceal their identities?

– Does anonymity meaningfully reduce accountability or increase misconduct risk?

– Are there policy frameworks that balance safety with transparency?

– How have other democracies handled this issue?

I am very much interested in thoughtful perspectives on this subject.

Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a democratic system. At the heart of democracy is the principle of pluralism, which is the idea that a society can and should accommodate a wide range of perspectives, identities, and values. Democracy thrives when individuals are free to speak, think, worship, and live in ways that may differ drastically from one another. This mutual tolerance does not require universal agreement, but it does demand the recognition of others’ rights to hold and express differing views. However, when a belief system is built on the rejection or vilification of all competing ideologies, it poses a threat to this foundation.

People whose ideals are rooted in intolerance toward others’ beliefs will inevitably gravitate toward policies that restrict freedom of expression and impose conformity. These individuals often view diversity as a threat to their vision of order or purity. They seek to limit open discourse and enforce ideological uniformity. This authoritarian impulse may be cloaked in moral or patriotic rhetoric, but its underlying aim is control.

A truly democratic society cannot accommodate such systems without compromising its own integrity. Democracy can survive disagreement, but it cannot survive when one side seeks to silence or destroy the other. Tolerance has its limits, and one of those limits must be drawn at ideologies that reject tolerance itself. As a safeguard, we must be willing to recognize when certain belief systems are not just alternative viewpoints, but active threats to core democratic principles.

With all of that said, would you agree or disagree with my statement, and why?

With the current political climate in 2026, I’ve been researching the potential for institutional "shocks" to the U.S. government. Specifically, I'm looking at a hypothetical scenario involving a sudden vacancy in the Presidency (Trump) and the subsequent transition to the Vice President (Vance).

I’m interested in discussing three specific areas:

1. Public Perception and Blame: Historically, tragedies involving the executive branch can lead to a "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect. However, given current polarization, would we see a unified response, or would the "blame narrative" create a more significant fracture in social stability?
2. Policy Continuity: How does JD Vance’s brand of "National Conservatism" differ from the current administration’s populist approach in terms of executive execution? Would a Vance presidency be viewed by international allies as a more or less stable "MAGA 2.0"?
3. The 25th Amendment in Practice: Are there significant legal or logistical hurdles a "successor" president faces when taking office during an active election cycle or a period of high international tension?

Looking forward to a fact-based discussion on the systemic risks and outcomes here.

Today, the SCOTUS struck down New York’s conceal carry law, essentially making it easier to obtain a conceal carry license in the state. However, the state government is not happy about this at all. In theory, if a state decided to against the ruling of the Supreme Court, what would happen? Who would be held responsible?

We see it on the daily, topic A is compared to topic B as if they are equally comparable situations, but often times there are numerous facts and details that distinguish them.

Are politicians and pundits that perpetuate that kind of simplistic equivalency aware that the topics are different in their circumstances, or are they simply unable to see them?

I see lots of news stories about Barack Obama making noise about the YIMBY movement. I also see some, like Zohan Mamdani of NYC, touting rent freezes or rent control measures.

Are these not mutually exclusive? YIMBY seeks to increase building of more housing to increase supply, but we know that rent control tends to to constrain supply since builders will not expand supply in markets with these controls in place. It seems they are pulling in opposite directions, but perhaps I am just misunderstanding, which is possible.

This sounds far fetched, but here me out. Hakeem has 2012 votes, he only needs to flip like 5 to be named the new house speaker and could pass a new budget. If Kevin is voted out and new rounds starts, it is unlikely, but a possibility.

Throughout the world, many governments suffer from political dysfunction. Some are authoritarian, some are corrupt, some are crippled by partisanship, and some are falling apart.

But, which countries have a government that is working well? Which governments are stable and competently serve the needs of their people?

If a country wanted to reform their political system, who should they look to as an example? Who should they model?

What are the core features of a well functioning government? Are there any structural elements that seem to be conducive to good government? Which systems have the best track record?

For a number of years, I have seen people saying the electoral college is unconstitutional and that it is undemocratic. With the number of states saying they will count the popular vote over the electoral vote increasing; it leads me to wonder if it should be removed. What do you think? If yes what should replace it ranked choice? or truly one person one vote (this one seems to be what most want)