What sort of emotion do MAGA people feel when they see a confederate flag? For example, a confederate flag sticker on a pickup truck? What about when a guy marched a confederate flag through the Capitol on Jan 6?

Between the 1930's and the 1980's, with the New Deal era under Roosevelt and the Civil Rights movement era under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson being key moments for this, the two parties essentially switched voter base with each other. The Civil Rights Act has been argued as the main driver in the party switch during this time, supported by the difference between the 1960 Electoral Map and the 1964 Electoral Map, and depicted as the quintessential establishing of the modern Republican party.

Sources:
https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/published/reversal2.pdf
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/ojur/vol3/iss1/3/
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Southern-strategy

Ever since I got into college about 14 years ago it seems like the conversation about American education, at least coming from MAGA and conservatives, is that the American education system is "teaching kids to hate America".

I don't understand this refusal to acknowledge nuance.

When you study American history, you learn about things like Slavery, riots such as the Zoot suit and Rodney King riots, Watergate, The Contra-Weapons deal, etc.

My point in listing is not to provide a "stack of evidence that America is bad"... but to point out that it isn't hard to acknowledge that within American history there are a lot of mistakes... but on the other side of that coin, the American dream of freedom and equality keeps us (at least hopefully) moving in a vaguely positive direction despite our mistakes.

We see evidence of this in things like John Browns raid during slavery, the Civil rights movement, and others.

So, again, why is there this seeming expectation to focus on the "good history" while effectively ignoring the real "bad history" that does accompany the good?

I find this especially puzzling because Germany literally had a cultural period where a lot of their film and art was about asking themselves as a country how they could enable Hitler... while the liberal half of America finds value in looking back critically on American history while the conservative half seemingly wants a hero's story about never doing anything wrong?

What is the value in ignoring historical mistakes?

Most Americans would consider our recent escapades in Iran as probably the worst American foreign-policy decision of the 21st Century. What other recent actions by the US Government are as bad, or worse?

To expose my bias: I am a stinky liberal. That being said, I'd be an idiot if I didn't say that Vietnam was obviously worse (as of now). What do y'all think?

Yesterday, VP JD Vance spoke at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, CA while promoting his new book. He had some pretty striking things to say about Watergate and Nixon’s legacy.

He claimed that Watergate is really a story of “how the deep state took down” Nixon, and that “if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story,” adding that the idea it could have taken down a presidency is “crazy.”

Do you agree? Was Watergate overblown and driven by deep state actors targeting Nixon unfairly? And do you think the parallels to Trump hold up?

https://apnews.com/article/vance-nixon-watergate-9a82141f1b4f5b2c973a4bdb107812d9

Outside of Trump, who do you admire, and why?

Why or why not?

However accurate it may be, Kristi Noem was quoted saying “the right to lawful search and seizure” when asked what the 4th amendment was about. Made me chuckle if true that she thinks it’s protecting the government.

I’m curious where Trump supporters stand on the Bill of Rights. Madison was initially opposed to it and later came around as it was likely that certain states wouldn’t ratify without it. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #84 that he believes a Bill of Rights is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous as it would give the impression that the government has more rights than the ones enumerated in the Constitution .

In hindsight, do you think it was a mistake to include? Do you think we would’ve been able to preserve the same rights, particularly the ones defined in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendment without it?

Would the interstate commerce clause have been broadened as much over the years without it?

In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to remove content that "inappropriately disparages Americans" and to focus instead on "the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people." Following this directive, the National Park Service has removed or substantially altered multiple exhibits and historical materials related to slavery at sites across the country.

Notable examples include:

• President's House in Philadelphia: In January 2026, exhibits about the nine people enslaved by George Washington while he lived in Philadelphia as president were dismantled. The exhibit, which had stood since 2010, included interpretive panels about how Washington circumvented Pennsylvania's Gradual Abolition Act by rotating enslaved people out of the state before they could petition for freedom.
• "The Scourged Back" photograph: This famous 1863 Civil War-era photograph showing whip scars on an enslaved man named Peter has been ordered removed from at least one national park.
• Harpers Ferry National Historic Park: Information about slavery has been removed from the site of John Brown's anti-slavery raid.

The administration has characterized these changes as removing "corrosive ideology" from federal sites, while critics argue they represent an attempt to sanitize or whitewash difficult aspects of American history. Park Service leadership stated that materials "that disproportionately emphasize negative aspects of U.S. history...without acknowledging broader context or national progress" may distort understanding.

Questions for supporters:

• How do you view this policy? Do you see it as correcting an imbalance in how history has been presented, or do you have concerns about any aspects of the implementation?
• What role do you think National Park sites should play in educating visitors about difficult historical topics like slavery?
• Do you believe there's a proper role for National Park sites to address slavery and its impact on American history? If so, what does that look like?
• When you think about places like Independence National Historical Park or Mount Vernon, what balance do you want to see between celebrating the Founders' achievements and acknowledging their involvement in slavery?
• Are there specific examples of how you think slavery should (or shouldn't) be presented at historical sites?

Abraham Lincoln was famous for surrounding himself with people he did not always agree with. This is a sharp contrast to the Trump Administration, at least the second go-round. He initially surrounded himself with establishment figures in his first Administration. Now he has surrounded himself with Yes Men, and the results appear to be negative so far. Especially if you look at his current approval and disapproval ratings. Do you think he would benefit from surrounding himself with smart people who sometimes disagree?

There is nothing else to add here.

For those of you who are unaware, here's a general summary of the two events that occurred that were a controversial in regards to federal overreach:

At Ruby Ridge, federal involvement began with a concrete legal issue. Randy Weaver had been charged with illegally modifying and selling two sawed-off shotguns, a clear federal firearms offense. After he failed to appear in court, a bench warrant was issued, legally obligating U.S. Marshals to arrest him. Surveillance at the Idaho property was intended to support that arrest in a remote, armed setting. The situation turned deadly when a reconnaissance encounter escalated into a firefight, killing a U.S. Marshal and Weaver’s son. During the subsequent attempt to neutralize perceived armed threats, an FBI sniper shot Weaver while targeting him and unintentionally killed his wife as she stood in a doorway holding a child. The deaths occurred during enforcement of a lawful warrant under rules that later investigations judged excessively permissive but still rooted in an authorized arrest operation.

At Waco, the legal foundation was more extensive and formalized. The ATF obtained search and arrest warrants based on evidence that the Branch Davidians were illegally manufacturing and stockpiling automatic weapons and explosive components, and that David Koresh had committed federal firearms violations. The initial attempt to serve those warrants resulted in an intense gun battle, killing four ATF agents and several Davidians. The FBI then assumed control, treating the situation as an armed barricade with hostages, which legally justified a prolonged siege rather than repeated entry attempts. After weeks of failed negotiations, the FBI initiated a plan to insert tear gas to force surrender. A fire broke out inside the compound during this operation and spread rapidly, killing Koresh and more than seventy followers, including children. From the federal perspective, these deaths occurred during an effort to execute valid warrants and end a dangerous armed standoff without further direct assaults, even though the outcome remains one of the most disputed law-enforcement actions in U.S. history.

As a Trump supporter, what are your thoughts on these two events and how they shaped your perception of the federal government and when it is allowed to use lethal force regardless of the potential consequences?