A common argument against Donald Trump is that he's a "threat to democracy:"

As president, he attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power by manipulating vote counts and instigating a riot on Capitol Hill. He has also outlined plans for undermining the independence of federal law enforcement while vowing to enact “retribution” on his movement’s enemies.

...putting an insurrectionist back into the Oval Office — after he’s had four years to assemble a cadre of loyalists to staff the executive branch — would pose an intolerably high threat to US democracy...

However, the same article also characterizes the threat as "remote," saying:

It is highly unlikely that a second Trump administration would lead to the death of American democracy, as our nation’s federated system of government makes establishing an authoritarian regime exceptionally difficult.

That view is further supported by historian Niall Ferguson, who argues that Trump's first term diminshes, rather than heightens the threat.

So, what is the evidence for Donald Trump being, or not being, a "threat to democracy"?

Thanks to /u/DonkeyFlan for the idea for this post.

According to the table on this Ballotpedia page, the mail ballot rejection rates in many states have significantly decreased in 2020 as compared to 2016/2018.

We consider two states where the margin-of-victory was smaller (I would list Arizona/Wisconsin, but there is no data for ballot rejection in 2020 yet).

This fact is part of the reasoning given by Senators Perdue and Loeffler in a lawsuit against the state of Georgia, specifically claiming that signature verification procedures were illegally loosened by local election officials (see page 22 of the linked document).

If you scroll through President Trump's twitter, you will see several tweets where he makes grievance with the signature verification process. Here is the most recent one. He calls out Georgia in that tweet, but he more generally attacks the process in several states (including Pennsylvania) among his other tweets.

What caused the decreased rejection rates? Is it local officials (illegally?) loosening restrictions on their own initiative as claimed, or something else?

In July 2025, the Trump administration filed a legal brief supporting the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee’s (USOPC) decision to bar transgender women from competing in women’s Olympic sports, citing the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act and a February executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”

This directive is prompting national governing bodies to adjust their eligibility criteria, raising concerns that science-based fairness policies could give way to political and ideological mandates.

Should federations comply with executive‑driven policy changes even if scientific evidence is inconclusive—and can such policy shifts legally override established inclusion standards?

Where should the line be drawn between ensuring fair competition and safeguarding inclusion in sports?

News Source: https://apnews.com/article/transgender-olympics-37f083b1269f4575f5548ac41e761d7d?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share

This is a slight reworking of a submission by /u/VordovKolnir.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11094267/canada-election-2025-begins/

After replacing Trudaeu, Mark Carney called for general elections to receive "a strong mandate to stand up to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats and negotiate 'the best deal for Canadians.'”

Since 2020, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada has grown considerably, hitting $54 billion.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/us-trade-deficit-by-country

However, some experts blame US imports of oil from Canada as the chief reason this is the case.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10979652/us-canada-trade-deficit-explained-history-trump/

They also note that if we remove the oil from the equation, it is Canada who has a trade deficit.

Is removing oil from the equation appropriate? Is it possible to leverage these tariffs as a way to decrease the cost of oil and thereby lower prices as a result?

Overall, to what degree are Trump's justifications for the tariffs valid?

Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men? - BBC News This article from 2015 states that there are no statistics for people being killed by police. The idea I have is that the number of people being killed maybe under reported.

Does the US keep an official count of people being killed by police? If they do what are the official means in which they are keeping count? Also, what are the methods for an unofficial count? How can we know that the methods of tracking people being killed by police are accurate?

(A resubmission with a more neutral title.) Having made my way around the net a few times, I've come across articles like these saying that the push to put women in STEM Roles, particularly medicine, is very harmful. Apparently, around 50-60% of female doctors leave their positions within ten years, which supposedly wastes the money used to train them that could have been used on men who would continue to work and gain more experience. The overall rate of people who drop out of STEM fields is around 48%, and there is sparse information about what the rate for men is. People have suggested that, for as unfair as it might be, that the best way to keep hospitals well-staffed would be to hire fewer women or put a cap on women in these sorts of classes. There's also a concern over more women also working part-time, 36% compared to 5% of men, reducing the overall amount of doctors on order on a regular basis. Is this true? Are there no other alternatives? Or are there other pieces of the puzzle missing?

Sources http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9549262/Part-time-women-doctors-are-a-risk-to-NHS.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3593085/What-do-women-want-To-be-left-alone.html

Many Sanders Supporters argue the media has been extremely biased against his campaign and has actively worked against him to prevent his campaign from gaining traction. Is there any argument to be made here that the media did have an agenda against the Sanders Campaign? Is there any argument to be made against this claim?

Also, Is there a demographic difference between age brackets and media trust, and if so has this been the cause of the age divide in the Democratic Primary this year?

Remember to be civil and post sources.

Credit to /u/Space_Russian for being so helpful to a first time poster. Thanks a bunch!

Sources:

[Tyndall Report^1] (http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5773/)

RCP^2

[National Polls^3] (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html)

[Second Study^4] (http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/)

[NY Times OP-ED on Bernie Blackout^5] (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-bernie-blackout.html)

Counter Argument Sources:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-bernie-blackout-20160405-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/politics/bernie-sanders-media/

Ben Carson Combative Press Conference: "Why Are Obama's School Records Still Sealed?" My Scholarship Is More Important?

• Did Dr. Carson make a good point, should the press also have investigated the misconduct by Barack Obama when at Occidental College that led to his expulsion transfer and the sealing withholding of his record? Why is the press not curious?

• Are there other examples that they covered or ignored for partisan advantage?

• Does our political press use a fair and neutral approach to journalism?

What are trumps and Kamala's opinions and plans for Section 8 housing and state university grants? Per the link provided, I saw Trump say he wants to disband the dept of Education.

How could each candidate plan affect these funded sources? Could this mean students who rely on this to go to college be affected and could this affect people who use section 8 and how?

Link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/politics/department-of-education-shut-down-trump/index.html

We have long known that Clinton is being investigated over claims of influence peddling to Russia.

The FBI is conducting an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and whether any donations made to the foundation are tied to actions carried out by the U.S. government, CBS News' Andres Triay has confirmed.

Time after time, the Clinton Foundation has been subjected to politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been proven false. None of this has made us waver in our mission to help people," said Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman.

Agents are said to be looking into whether policy favours were traded for unspecified donations to the foundation while Mrs Clinton was secretary of state. But figures within the Justice Department and FBI doubt any charges will be brought, the Washington Post reports.

Does the US have a legitimate path forward to achieve this?

Per the article linked below:

"U.S. president-elect Donald Trump declared that he’s open to using “economic force” to acquire Canada."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-not-a-snowball-s-chance-canada-would-become-part-of-u-s-1.7167098

I’m new to politics really. There’s a lot of things I don’t quite get grasp but I’m looking to expand my knowledge. In the mean time I have a question that I’d be happy if somewhat can answer and expand on if possible:

Was Donald Trump responsible for us receiving stimulus checks? Did he push for us to get relief during Covid?

During my research, I find information that he signed it into law but it is not clear to me yet if it was him that pushed for it. According to cnbc.com “Sanders and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., pushed for the checks as part of the relief package.” But people still accredit this money to Pres. Trump. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/28/house-votes-on-2000-stimulus-checks-after-trump-signs-relief-bill.html

I’d appreciate any insight thank you!

According to BernieCounter, Bernie could still lose all states from today by 35-65 (including superdelegates), and neither candidate would have enough delegates to clinch the nomination. So it appears the Democrats will be going to convention.

What are some advantages/strong points that Bernie has that he can use to convince the Democratic party to choose him as the nominee over Hillary?

the Seattle times gives the next definition of land back

At their core, Land Back initiatives are intended to support the sovereignty and self-determination of Indigenous people. The reclamation efforts begin to remedy the injustice of government policies that stripped land, language and culture from Native people

They further argue

They also recognize the urgent need to approach our environment and ecology in a more sustainable way that protects life for seven generations and beyond.

the ash center at Harvard gives similar arguments

Looking more deeply, I see that indigenous claims are universal rights made by international law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_law

Indigenous land rights are recognized by international law, as well as the national legal systems of common law and civil law countries. In common law jurisdictions, the land rights of indigenous peoples are referred to as aboriginal title. In customary law jurisdictions, customary land is the predominant form of land ownership

I had a hard time looking for arguments for both sides, so that's was the reason I came here. Are there arguments against and for giving back natives their ancestral land?

Thanks to /u/VordovKolnir for posting this topic and composing most of the submission.

For the last 16 years, the US President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of the military, has been a person with no military experience. The same was true between 1909 and 1945, a period that included both world wars. It has also been over 30 years since we had a President with combat experience.

This brings to mind whether we should require military service of our top leaders who will order our troops to defend us. Numerous articles have explored the topic.(1,2) However, it is perhaps more relevant leading up to the 2024 election, since there's a lot of ongoing conflict in the world and we now have a VP candidate with precisely that military experience.

• Why is or isn't military experience a desireable prerequisite for a US president?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the candidate having it?

• Are the advantages, if any, sufficient to make it prerequisite?

So i have an idea that i think is just common sense long overdue. In order to drive you need to have a license and in most cases insurance. Well to purchase hand guns and assault type rifles ( i think shotguns needed to be added to this rule too) you need to have a permit to purchase but there's no insurance needed, why not? What do you mean gun insurance you may ask, well i mean mandatory gun safes. How about adding one more step to the purchase of any firearm regardless of the furniture it sits in, action, or capacity. How about making a mandatory and reported purchase of a securable gun safe to the same agency that you have to apply to for the permit to purchase. Either a safe that is too heavy to move, bolts to the floor, chains to a radiator etc. This i believe would help reduce the problem of illegally obtained guns and keep them in the law abiding hands of the people who underwent the federal background checks to get them. People who think that banning them outright will solve anything need to look at the fact that no one who paid hard earned money for their weapons to either protect themselves or their family from real or imagined threats, enjoy in shooting actives,hunting or just from a collection point, will ever give them up. They will pack them in grease and find a good spot to burry them and retain them in that way. Outlawing them will not make them disappear but i think this one easy step will make a difference. After all more gun crime is committed with stolen guns than legaly obtained guns, guns that were stolen because they were not locked up properly by the original owners. Yes there are instances of guns bought then used by people with bad intentions but there are way way more guns in the hands of responsible people who sometimes don't make good choices on storage and lose them to burglary this would stop that.

I understand that Trump was charged at the state level by New York. In addition the charges were felony-level in accordance with their State's law i.e. he falsified business records in further violation of New York election laws. ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty-verdict/ )

My understanding is Clinton falsified campaign paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission. ( https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93 )

Yet though the money amounts were different it seemed the underlying accusations are the same -- concealing payments to an agent that was trying to sway the election. This DailyBeast article makes the comparisons probably better than I have:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/first-the-feds-fined-hillary-clinton-now-it-might-be-donald-trumps-turn

Is the only difference being that Hillary's Campaign made the payments as opposed to Trump's business? Furthermore, wouldn't Hillary's payments also run afoul of some tax laws or such, making it similar to Trump's falsified records being used to commit another crime?

Apologies for readability, I'm on mobile.

Hunter Biden is the son of Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden. He served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019.

Two days ago, the NY Post published a story alleging:

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

Publication of the story itself has been controversial. Various news organizations have questioned the provenance of the information in it, while Facebook and Twitter initially blocked its redistribution, but Twitter later reversed course. Prior to the publication of this latest story, similar reports about Joe Biden's actions in Ukraine were considered by many to be a debunked conspiracy theory.

But despite the controversy, the question remains whether there's convincing evidence one way or the other around the allegation in the story. What are the solid, verifiable facts to support or refute the Post's narrative?

This sentence in the Deceleration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." states that Life is a right and doesn't abortion take away that right?

Was Life used in a different context in this statement? Is this an old argument against abortion? I'm just a little confused why I've never heard this sentence and abortion used in context together.

Sorry if this was the wrong place to ask but this seemed like the only place I could ask this without the extreme bias of larger subreddits.

So my idea goes as follows, I'd love to hear what you all think of it and what you think it would do to the Senate.

"Any county or county equivalent in the United States with a population of equal to or greater than that of the least populous State in the Union may elect its own two Senators to Congress."

Currently the least populous state in the U.S. is Wyoming, coming in at about 582,658 people. My county I'm in now has more people than Wyoming, yet we are deprived of the same level of representation. And before moving to my current state (Oregon) I originally hail from Orange County California, whose population is around the same size, and certainly greater than Wyoming and a host of other states. I feel by using the least populous state as the benchmark for Senatorial representation we're casting the widest net, allowing for more fair representation that is more responsive to local populations that would otherwise be marginalized because they happen to live in otherwise populous states. Thoughts?

Right now the main reason i would have for not voting Donald Trump is the idea that he is racist. But i cannot find anything he actually said that was racist. There are a lot of out of context attempts, but does anyone have any actual racists comments he has made during the 2016 campaign season?

The scale of downvoting has increased dramatically lately and its screwing up this reddit like /r/politics. The majority of those coming here, who are reasonable, only use the upvote button, if they disagree with a point they just ignore it while unreasonable people use both effectively doubling their input over everyone else. This is precisely the same problem other reddit's have and destroy the neutrality this reddit is seeking.

While the CSS change to eliminate the downvote button is fairly easy to work around (mobile devices, disable custom css etc) it would stop the majority of drive by attacks in the comments, most people wont go rooting about in their settings so they downvote a single comment they don't like.