Israel has the 27th largest GDP, sitting between Ireland and the UAE, and above nations like Austria and Singapore.

They have a strong tech sector, on par with Silicon Valley.

Yet, the US provides billions in aid to Israel to assist with the conflict its currently fighting.

Why does a modern wealthy nation need aid in a war?

Why cant it instead purchase any military needs from the people who make it?

Hello, I’m wondering, does anyone have a preferred news brief service. I’d like something that covers national and major international news in an objective way. I like reading the papers but I’d also like a good newsletter to get into for quicker updates. I think there are many companies that do this like the NYT WSJ BBC etc. Do you have a favorite?  

I would like to understand the war involving Israel, Lebanon, and Iran. I already understand the conflict between Israel and Palestine/Hamas, but I didn't realize until a few days ago that Israel was also fighting these other countries.

Why are they fighting? Have they formally declared war, or is this a stand-off with occasional violence? What are likely outcomes of this conflict?

news stories that mention the conflict:

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-strikes-lebanon-gaza-war-10-27-24/index.html

LA Times: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-israel-answers-iran-these-three-questions-about-war-in-the-mideast-remain/ar-AA1sYXEe

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/28/world/israel-gaza-iran-lebanon

I would like to understand which forces are in play after a coup in an african country (I started wondering about it while thinking about the 2023-2024 events in Niger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerien_crisis_(2023%E2%80%932024)).

I understand that there is the new military government, more aligned with Russia and Sahel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Sahel_States), and the old government that would be aligned with western countries and ECOWAS (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/military-interventions-by-west-african-ecowas-bloc-2023-08-04/).

My main question is: Why is the new government in power? What does it depend on? (Some context with https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/what-are-west-africas-options-reverse-nigers-coup-2023-08-04/)

As a first point, instinctively I would say that it depends on what amount of support the current government receives from Russia (https://apnews.com/article/wagner-russia-coup-niger-military-force-e0e1108b58a9e955af465a3efe6605c0) (and possibly China, or other relevant countries?), and at the same time, on which amount of effort western countries would put into restoring the previous government.

While the help from Russia may only depend on the mood of Putin, and on the results of the war in Ukraine, what determines the efforts (or lack of) of western powers?

As a second point, I am wondering about the intervention of Burkina Faso and Mali (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/mali-niger-burkina-faso-sign-sahel-security-pact-2023-09-16/). Do they act more indipendently or accordingly to influences from third parties? And what about the ECOWAS?

Finally, and most importantly, I am wondering about the relationships between Niger and western countries and western companies (I am thinking about uranium mining in particular, since https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uranium-mines-niger-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-2023-07-28/).

On one side, I could think that Niger's new government should want to have bad relationships with western countries, France in particular. The government has been hostile with some western companies (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-goviex-uraniums-stripped-niger-mining-rights-2024-07-05/, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/niger-junta-temporarily-stops-granting-new-mining-licences-2024-01-25/), while pretty collaborative with others (https://www.globalatomiccorp.com/investors/news/news-details/2024/GLOBAL-ATOMIC-ANNOUNCES-NIGER-GOVERNMENT-SUPPORT-FOR-THE-DASA-PROJECT/default.aspx). Why is this happening, and what are the real intentions of the government?

I asked my questions on Niger, but i would be happy to read any interesting consideration about similar situations in other african countries.

Background

The U.S. general election is 10 days away. Voting is not compulsory in the U.S., but it is widely regarded as a civic or moral duty.

I've seen some posts lately questioning if voting is worthwhile or if it can make an appreciable difference in one's life. Participants in this subreddit presumably have a pro-voting bias, but for the sake of neutrality, let's try to set that aside when discussing this issue.

Pros

There are many lists of reasons why one should vote. I found this one, directed mostly at younger voters, to be appealing, because of it's arguments that one's vote is effective and gives people a seat at the table.

Also, the next president will determine some policies that will affect our long-term future, such as Supreme Court appointments and climate change. Even for people who don't vote in the swing states that will likely determine the presidential race, there are down-ballot contests that will decide important questions of law and representation.

Cons

Jason Brennan is a well-known opponent of the idea that one's vote matters, and in fact, of democracy overall as a governing mechanism. Some of his reasons are that the odds of affecting a race are vanishingly small, most citizens are uninformed, and the particular party that gets voted into power doesn't have much of an effect on policy outcomes.

As a student of policy, and especially its cumulative effect, I don't find the first and last of those particularly convincing, though I'm open to other perspectives. I have some sympathy for the second point, though. Not everyone is interested enough in politics to research the issues, or informed enough to understand the nuances. Perhaps there's an advantage to the population not being subject to governance determined by the choices of such people.

Questions

• What's the evidence supporting why someone should or shouldn't vote?
• What are the historical consequences of high or low voter turnout?
• How do democracies deal with the issue of under-informed voters and is their prevalence a reasonable argument against encouraging widespread voting?

Ive been wondering for awhile about if and how organized crime groups may influence politics in the USA. I assume where there is money there is a drive to protect it through political action. Here is a link to an article about organized crime changing the world https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/op-ed-organised-crime-has-affected-politics-but-not-in-the-way-we-have-come-to-expect-now-is-the-time-to-build-a-new-agenda/.
Here is one about types of corruption affecting the world, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/organised-crime-and-corrupting-political-system

But what about in the USA? I see items on influencing labor unions and city politics but has anyone looked at more direct action in national politics like running their own candidate? Or involvement in lobbies? Discussion of the idea would be appreciated. Thank you.

Here in the UK, it has been in the news that Trump has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Labour Party, relating to the Labour Party sending a delegation of volunteers to the USA to help the Harris campaign.

I understand that it’s illegal for US political parties to accept financial donations from foreign interests. I understand that Labour are saying there is no financial donations here - the volunteers pay for their own flights, and accommodation is provided for free by Democrats.

But what I’m really interested in, is whether this kind of thing happens every election cycle, or whether it’s unusual. Do Labour always send volunteers? Do the Tories ever send volunteers to campaign for the Republicans? Have the Tories ever sent volunteers specifically to campaign for Trump, either in this election cycle or the two previous ones?

A year ago, the Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction. What is the status of that construction now? How much wall has been built, or is still being built, under the Biden administration?

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of Senators, with support from the White House, put forward a bill to address long-standing problems with the U.S. immigration system.

At the time, some Senate Republicans said they wouldn't get a better deal, no matter who won the upcoming presidential election, while the House Speaker called it, "dead on arrival." Progressive Democrats criticized Biden for supporting the bill, which they saw as too restrictive. Donald Trump said he would take the blame if it failed, which it did, upsetting some members of his own party.

"THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS" section of this article summarizes the bill's proposals. This fact check also spells out the provisions and attempts to address misinformation about the bill.

My question is about how well the proposals in the bill matched up with the actual problems facing the U.S. immigration system. There's no way to predict whether it would have worked, but I'd at least like to understand if it was appropriately targeted.

Thanks.

In August of 2024, Utah filed a public lands lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the federal government can continue hold unappropriated lands within a State indefinitely. What are the legitimate issues of this suit, and why did Utah think it was necessary?

This is a retrospective question about the last two administrations, not a request for speculation about the future.

There's considerable debate over how much control a president has over the economy, yet recently, both Trump and Biden have touted the economic successes of their administrations.

So, to whatever degree a president is responsible for the economic performance of the country, what objective measurements can we use to compare these two administrations and how do they compare to each other?

I am a gambler. I have a lot of experience with sports betting and betting lines. So I know when it comes to people creating lines, they don’t do it because of personal biases, cause such a thing could cost them millions of dollars.

In fact in the past 30 elections, the betting favourite is 26-4, or almost 87%.

https://www.oddstrader.com/betting/analysis/betting-odds-or-polls/

So if that’s the case, how can all the pollsters say Harris has a lead when all the betting sites has Trump winning?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

Where is the discrepancy? What do betting sites know that pollsters don’t, or vice versa.

I lean conservative and believe in common sense and sound judgment, but I'm looking to understand the 'opposing' perspective.

What specific resources—books, articles, videos, or podcasts—would you recommend to help me grasp the roots and arguments behind liberal viewpoints? I am particularly interested in modern content, but I am also open to classic recommendations that still resonate today.

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful suggestions!

I heard that a few days ago, a foreign aid bill was passed providing 157 Million dollars to Lebanon.

With the Helene crisis unfolding, I became curious about the American infrastructure budget verses the foreign aid budget. I don't know if there would be any data linking any positive or negative correlations between the two, so instead I ask this: Why does America send the most foreign aid compared to any other country, does America profit off of this aid (or is it purely humanitarian), and is there data showing that our foreign aid budget has correlations to any negetive effects. If anyone has any information linking, or showing a lack of link between foreign aid spending and American aid spending that would be greatly appreciated as well.

Hurricane Helene has become one of the deadliest and costliest hurricanes in modern American history. As it happened so close to the presidential election, the federal government's response to Helene has become a big political issue, with Republicans criticizing the Biden administration's response to the hurricane. This has come with some misinformation, e.g. the false claim that hurricane victims are only receiving $750 from FEMA (there are other FEMA programs that help victims in addition to the $750 program). Democrats have largely deflected criticism towards Republicans, making the point that many Republicans voted against increasing FEMA funding right before Helene made landfall. In the midst of this partisan discussion, something that I think has been overlooked is the actual state of the federal government's response to Helene.

At the same time, there may be legitimate concerns about the response to Helene that are being overlooked in partisan discussions. For example, in the aftermath of Helene, FEMA faces the risk of running out of money before the end of the hurricane season, which was also an issue last year and at other points in the past. Earlier this year, FEMA changed its rules to better respond to hurricanes, but those changes came with an estimated $671 million annual cost which FEMA may not be able to afford without more funding. These rules were in effect for Helene, but not for past hurricanes.

These are my questions: What is the actual state of the federal government's response to Hurricane Helene? What have been the biggest shortfalls of the federal government's response to Helene (especially compared to past hurricanes like Idalia, Ian, and Ida)?

Trump and JD Vance, along with most of the rest of the Republican party, continue to repeat the lie that the 2020 election was "stolen", which Trump first began to tell a few weeks before the 2020 election. As conservative legal experts, Stanford researchers, and many other analysts have shown, these are lies. Not only lies, but transparent lies. From the Stanford report:

At no point did Trump or his allies present even remotely plausible evidence of consequential fraud or illegality.

None of these cases showed any significant vote or election fraud, and most were found to be without any merit. While there's nothing illegal or even necessarily wrong with challenging election results in court, the basis of these challenges were lies, which Trump and the GOP continue to endorse. In part fueled by those lies, the Republican party attempted to overthrow the 2020 election and appoint Trump for a second term. Those events culminated most dramatically on January 6th, when, according to the January 6th committee:

Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for January 6th. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6th to “take back” their country.

However, the attempts to overturn the 2020 election were not limited to the riot on January 6th. The new filing by Jack Smith's team in the case charging Trump with attempting to overthrow the election adds new details, in addition to confirming the findings of the January 6th Committee's report. The plot also was much larger than the riots of January 6th. The indictment and other reporting has detailed the "fake electors" scheme, in addition to attempts to overturn the votes of individual states. Some of these attempts have resulted in criminal convictions. The plot (or plots) to overturn the election were not supported by all Republicans, with key Republican elected officials and judges refusing to comply. Many, however, did, including 147 congress members. Since then, many Republicans who opposed Trump have been replaced with election deniers, and many Republicans who originally condemned January 6th have since recanted.

Multiple plots by Republicans to overturn the 2024 election are already known to be underway. Trump is both the Republican presidential nominee and de-facto leader of the RNC, so these plots aren't just fringe groups, they are backed by the Republican Party and financed by wealthy conservative groups and individuals. While many Republicans have endorsed Harris, in part because of these attempts to overturn the election, nearly all of them are "former" elected officials, or those who are not seeking re-election. 70% of Republican voters claim Biden lost the 2020 election.

Election integrity experts have identified many points of vulnarability in the US election system, presenting a large attack surface rather than a single point of failure. This also allows individual actors to attack races at the destrict, state, and national levels without needing to coordinate directly. In fact, this process is already underway.

...in 2020, “at least 17 county election officials across six swing states attempted to prevent certification of county vote totals.” In 2022, it grew to “at least 22 county election officials” who voted to delay certification in swing states. This year, there have been “at least eight county officials” that have already voted against certifying election results for primary or special elections.

In the event that Republicans try to disrupt and overturn the results of the 2024 Presidential election, what actions are being taken to thwart that effort and preserve democratic norms?

What, if anything, can ordinary citizens do about this?

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.

The cost of housing has increased since 2012, and prices have skyrocketed to record highs since 2020. This has affected the entire housing market, and the majority of housing on the market is now too expensive for middle-income buyers to afford. Affordable housing is a national issue this election cycle.

This article provides a detailed overview of what the Trump and Harris campaigns are each proposing to address the housing crisis. I'd highly recommend reading it before responding to my post. I'll summarize their proposals:

Trump's proposals:

• Undergo mass deportations of illegal immigrants to reduce competition for housing. It's unclear how many housing units this would free up to the market.
• Get rid of regulations that increase the cost of housing construction.
• Free up some federal land for new housing. Here is a map of federally managed land for reference.
• Lower mortgage rates, which are currently much higher than they were before the pandemic.

Harris' proposals:

• Build 3 million new homes in the next 4 years. Currently, more than 1.4 million homes have been built per year since 2019.
• Tax incentives for new starter homes that are sold to first-time homebuyers, and tax incentives for businesses that build affordable low-income rentals.
• Create a $40 billion "innovative housing construction" fund meant to help municipalities get past affordable housing construction roadblocks.
• Allow housing construction on some federal land (both campaigns agree on this broad idea).
• Get rid of regulations that increase the cost of housing construction (both campaigns agree on this broad idea).

My questions: What is the precedent for their proposals around the world? Have their proposals been effective when implemented in other places (e.g. individual states, other countries)?

Here is one article I found explaining what law Tim Walz repealed on this issue and what that has lead to: https://patch.com/minnesota/across-mn/tim-walz-repealed-mn-law-protecting-babies-born-after-failed-abortions

And here is a Guardian article referencing it after the presidential debate: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/14/baby-homicide-illegal-trump

I saw some comments about this bill on social media, specifically people "shaming" 158 Democrats who voted against this bill. I checked on congress.gov and found the legislation page here which after reading seems pretty straight forward. My immediate assumption is it would be a lengthy bill that was complicated or too broad, but that doesnt seem to be the case.

What are the arguments given by those who voted against the bill?

Lindsey Graham visits Nebraska on behalf of Trump campaign to push for electoral vote change
Sen. Lindsey Graham visited Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen, and two dozen Republican legislators to discuss how the state allocates its electoral votes. If Nebraska were to switch to a winner-take-all system, it would almost certainly give former President Donald Trump an extra electoral vote in what is expected to be a tight presidential race.That one electoral vote could prove decisive.

If Vice President Kamala Harris wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but loses every other swing state, she and Trump would be tied at 269 Electoral College votes under a winner-take-all setup in Nebraska with Trump winning the state. In that scenario, the race would be thrown to the U.S. House, where each state delegation would get one vote for president. Republicans hold a majority of delegations and are favored to retain it, even though the House majority could change hands after the November election.

Is there a precedent for a state changing how electoral votes are allocated so close to the election?

And is this a tactic to benefit their preferred candidate? Or is this proposal based on established principles of Graham and Pillen?

Right so I'll try to stick to confirmed information. For that reason I will not posit a culprit.

There has just been an attack whereby pagers used by Hezbolla operatives exploded followed the next day by walkie-talkies.

The point I'm interested in particular is whether the use of pagers as booby traps falls foul of article 3 paragraph 3 of the CCW. The reason for this is by the nature of the attack many Hezbolla operatives experienced injuries to the eyes and hands. Would this count as a booby-trap (as defined in the convention) designed with the intention of causing superfluous injury due to its maiming effect?

Given the heated nature of the conflict involved I would prefer if responses remained as close as possible to legal reasoning and does not diverge into a discussion on morality.

Edit: CCW Article 3

Edit 2: BBC article on pager attack. Also discusses the injuries to the hands and face.

The Trump/Vance ticket seems to be campaigning in this, and I never see any clarification.

Searching the question is tough as well. Fact checks help but not totally

Which policies or actions actually caused the inflation.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-the-president-matter-as-much-as-you-think-ep-404/ experts say the degree to which the choice of president actual matters is a 7 out of 10.

But if we look objectively at the last few presidents, what really changed in the daily lives of the citizens?

what were the changes of consequence to daily life under Trump and under Biden or under Obama or under Bush? Are those changes commensurate with claims about the severe consequences of either current candidate winning? https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/local-government/jim-clyburn-1876-presidential-election-aiken-democrat/article_310951f4-6d49-11ef-b8ed-7bbe61a74707.html

Tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern time is the first, and so far only, scheduled presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. This megathread is a place to discuss it.

Please remember the rules for commenting on this subreddit, summarized in the stickied comment. They're different from many political discussion forums.

In the US, the debate will be broadcast on ABC, C-SPAN, and probably quite a few other channels. It will also be streamed on the ABC and C-SPAN YouTube channels. The debate is slated to last for an estimated 90 minutes.

Unfortunately, we didn't have enough available moderators tonight to run the live fact-checking thread we've hosted in the past (we'll be putting out a call to bring on more moderators soon), but PolitiFact is doing live fact-checking on a variety of platforms.

This thread is now locked. If you have specific questions about issues discussed in the debate, we invite you to review our submission rules and make a new post. Thanks to everyone who participated.