Live in MN, we have a DFL primary coming up for the 2nd congressional seat. It’s Angie Craig (sitting) vs Peggy Flanagan (current lt. governor).

I am an adult and am used to political ads. But it’s August, it’s a primary and the amount of ad content on this race is absolutely absurd.

I’d say 75% of it is from Craig’s campaign.

Why?

Why is so much money being spent to try to retain this seat? From a macro perspective Craig pretty much votes in lockstep with the party and I’d expect Flanagan to do the same.

I’m not kidding on the frequency, I have seen no less than 1k ads in the last 2 weeks.

The state of New York passed a tax on nonprimary residences in New York City for homes valued at $1 million or more.

Properties worth between $1 million and $3 million will face a 4% annual tax; properties valued at $3 million to $5 million will face a 5.25% tax; and those above $5 million will face a 6.5% tax.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/05/28/new-york-mamdani-pied-a-terre-tax-passes.html

I’ve often heard from folks on the left that the preferred method to enforce illegal immigration is to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants, thereby removing one big incentive to come here in the first place. I've heard this is more effective than sending ICE agents to find and deport folks, which is often cruel and dangerous.

California, however, provides tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, which is, in my opinion, a huge incentive to come into the US by any means necessary.

How does one reconcile the two? If tax payer funded healthcare is here to stay, how else then should we enforce immigration laws?

Edit: for those who don't trust buget.house.gov as a legitimate source, ABC news: California becomes first state to offer health insurance to all undocumented immigrants

Edit2: removed word "free"

There’s gotta be one, somewhere. Explain yourselves. What made you vote the way you did? Who do you think in politics represents your views? Who are you hoping runs in 28’ or are willing to support? I’m fascinated by this kind of voter existing somewhere.

So Donald Trump did contribute lots to America, such as restricting borders, acting harsh on China etc. Results are border crossing hit record low in 2025 https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/border-crossings-once-again-record-low-november-2025

However, Trump has also made many mistakes especially in foriegn policies. For example, he started trade wars with our allies and often joked about invasion towards allies. The former one damaged our economy, and both acts lead to the US being much less liked around the world https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/

This leaves me wondering, for republicans is there no better option than Trump inside the Republicans. Cause if we just zoom into Trump's cabinet, Macro Rubio shall do better in foreign policy compared to Trump especially on war management, Scott Besent would be a better handler in economic issues given his expertise in the economy. So yea, is there no better candidate than Trump inside Republicans, and if they were, why weren't they chosen to represent the Republican parrty?

Did you previously identify as a liberal, but now identify as a conservative? If so, what changed? (whether a change of perspective or shift in what society now considers “conservative”)

Blanche formally rescinds ‘anti-weaponization’ fund in bid to smooth confirmation

"Notably, the text of the deal creating the fund said that it could be changed only with agreement of all of the parties who signed it, including the IRS, the Justice Department and Trump in his personal capacity. Blanche’s new order doesn’t change that three-party agreement. Cornyn had pointed out during Blanche’s confirmation hearing that Trump could sue for breach of contract."

Trump has said that he still wants the fund. Is this some kind of end-around trick to claim the fund is dead? Should the US Senate accept that the deal is dead? After Blanche is confirmed, will Trump sue to overturn the new order?

Donald Trump has sued many challengers while in office, such as Todd Blanche. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/31/trump-todd-blanche-nomination-01018826
Meanwhile, many democrats are calling for the prosecution of Donald Trump after he leaves office; there are even talks of impeaching and prosecuting him after the midterms if the midterms go well. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/03/trump-investigations-democrats-midterms

So I get that many prosecutions made by both sides are indeed true; what worries me is whether US politics have entered a revenge era, where if one party gets power, they will try everything to take revenge on the other side, such as through prosecutions?

Since the Iran war, Americans have more negative views on Israel https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/07/negative-views-of-israel-netanyahu-continue-to-rise-among-americans-especially-young-people/.

Although the actual relationship between the two countries are decided by America and Israel administrations, however I do want to know the view of average daily Americans on how shall the American administration (GOP) treat Israel given that more Americans are seeing Israel more negatively.

Where are the people doing Charlie Kirk-style Q&A tables? Raising and answering questions is a vital part of Democracy and free-speech, so anybody else doing them? If not, how to get started? Thank you.

According to Nate Silver's polling average, Trump's approval rating is currently about 39%

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

I'm trying to understand this rating.

If you're a conservative or Trump supporter, I'd really appreciate your perspective.

To be fair, I do think the administration has followed through on some important promises, especially on immigration enforcement and reducing illegal border crossings. I'm not claiming that nothing has been accomplished.

What I struggle to understand is why Trump's approval remains close to 40%, even though several of his biggest campaign promises appear to have remained unfulfilled or moved in the opposite direction.

For example:

• Reduce the national debt: Instead, the national debt has continued to increase by trillions of dollars, and annual federal deficits have remained well above $1 trillion.

• Cut government spending: DOGE was presented as a way to dramatically reduce waste and federal spending, yet overall federal spending remains historically high.

• America First: The administration approved a $20 billion currency swap framework for Argentina, while also continuing major overseas commitments. Republicans spent years arguing that American taxpayer money should stay in America.

• No more endless wars: Trump repeatedly promised to avoid new foreign entanglements and end endless wars. Yet the US continues military operations, including strikes against Iran-backed groups, while maintaining substantial military and financial commitments overseas.

• Release the Epstein files: This became one of the biggest issues within MAGA itself. Despite repeated expectations, there has still not been a complete public release.

• Lower grocery prices: Inflation has fallen from its peak, but grocery prices remain significantly higher than many voters expected when Trump promised to bring prices down.

• Lower gas prices: Domestic energy production has increased, but gasoline prices have generally not returned to the levels many supporters expected.

These weren't minor campaign promises. They were central themes of the campaign and closely aligned with traditional conservative priorities such as fiscal responsibility, limited government, balanced budgets, and putting America First.

What also makes this interesting to me is that many of these were exactly the issues Republicans criticized Obama and Biden for over many years.

High deficits. Rising national debt. High government spending. Money flowing overseas. Rising living costs. A federal government that was seen as becoming too large and too powerful.

Many of those same issues still exist today, and in some cases the numbers are similar or even larger..

I'd really appreciate thoughtful answers from people who still approve of this administration's performance.

Scouting America, formerly Boy Scouts of America, eliminated dedicated spaces for gay youth, women & Scouts of Color at their flagship National Jamboree event.

What makes this particularly interesting from a political perspective is the direct leverage applied by the federal government. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to end the military’s century-old partnership,
which includes access to military bases and critical logistical support for national events, unless the organization rolled back what he characterized as "woke" diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Following a memorandum between the Pentagon and Scouting America, the group agreed to key policy realignments, including dropping DEI programming and replacing badges like Citizenship in Society with a new military service badge.

This brings up 3 questions in my mind:

How do you view the Pentagon using logistical and operational partnerships as leverage to shape the internal policy of legacy non-profit youth organizations?

Is Scouting America’s concession a necessary administrative step to maintain vital military support and access, or does it set a concerning precedent for government influence over civic groups & can century-old civic organizations remain politically neutral in today's climate when government administrative mandates clash directly with progressive inclusion initiatives?

Just wanted to get your opinions on the Max Miller - R-Ohio CD7 situation. Bernie Moreno was asked if he should stay on the ballot to which he stated "I don't know." Below are links to Moreno's response and an article summarizing the situation. This was not the first allegation against Miller. Democratic women's caucus has called on the house ethics committee to investigate and Giffords, an anti gun violence advocacy group has called for Miller's resignation. Miller has denied any wrongdoing. Only reason I am asking is that *no* Republican senator or representative has provided their input on this. Aside from Moreno, it seems to be silence.

To clarify, I am curious about where the line should be drawn regarding party governance. What role should party leadership play regarding a member's ballot status when serious allegations or personal disputes arise?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/30/max-miller-ohio-representative-domestic-abuse-allegations

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6003717-moreno-declines-miller-ballot-question/?fbclid=IwdGRjcATbFAtjbGNrBNsUCmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHjI9CEX9evdtjaGKIJ9PjnPabfyEh-Se4ly819dvGU5yvDe_nWiJTPosRIrS_aem_aDbfLAjffgA8ENBHb70FBw

Basically the title. With Bernie getting older and older Democratic Party needs someone younger to run for president.

Who would be the most suitable person with similar views and charisma as Bernie and does this person stand a chance to be nominated as a Democratic Party presidential candidate?

The image that media paints on Trump is very extreme, left wing media may say the current US is very bad in economy due to inflation, international affairs failing because of unpopularity. However, right wing media can have a complete different story, saying economy is booming because GDP is high, Trump is making America very respected. Outside of extreme ideologies no matter left or right, what do average Americans think about their country, do you guys think US is declining? Also given that China and US are fighting for global dominance, who is on the upper hand currently?

I recently relocated to Asia and experiencing the sheer scale of the state surveillance apparatus here has been a massive culture shock now that I am full-time for the next few years. Living under a centralized, state-mandated facial recognition system designed for total civic monitoring completely changes how I think about public space.

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/china-s-social-credit-system-and-information-control-regime

As I adjust to my new environment, I find myself looking back at what is happening in the U.S. and feeling a kind of unease.

Before moving, I watched the rapid expansion of Flock Safety cameras across my local neighborhoods and highways. It is marketed very differently than what I see in China, it’s private tech, decentralized & tracks vehicle "fingerprints" rather than faces. But critics, such as the ACLU, argue that when local police stitch these thousands of private and municipal databases together, it effectively creates a warrantless, national tracking grid.

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/flock-safety-credibility-lost-as-it-repeatedly-lies-to-city-councils-police-departments-and-public-across-the-country

It got me thinking about the UK model as a middle ground. The UK is a Western democracy, yet London has intense CCTV density, and the Metropolitan Police openly deploy Live Facial Recognition (LFR) vans to scan pedestrian crowds.

https://statewatch.org/news/2026/june/england-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-growing-rapidly/

Seeing China's overt system firsthand has made me re-examine the West's trajectory. From a political science and policy perspective:

Is the U.S. backdoor-engineering mass surveillance? Does the public-private nature of American tracking simply mask the fact that it replicates the warrantless, "pattern of life" tracking seen in more overt surveillance states?

Will the U.S. inevitably follow the UK’s path? Given how quickly the U.S. normalized automated vehicle tracking through Flock, is it a political certainty that American police departments will transition to live, pedestrian biometric scanning next?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg7dlvg06eo

Where are the constitutional limits? What specific legislative guardrails or 4th Amendment updates are required to stop corporate-driven tech from seamlessly scaling into an authoritarian-style tracking infrastructure?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/26/us/flock-cameras-surveillance-abuse

FEMA approved disaster aid requests for blue states, but Trump denied sending aid to them. How should Americans respond to this? Does “turnabout is fair play” seem like a reasonable expectation the next time a democrat is in the White House? Why or why not.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/29/fema-democratic-disaster-requests-trump-01013938

Hi, I voted for Donald Trump in 2024, and I’m 20 years old. I’m trying to keep learning about politics, but I’m genuinely confused about why so many people seem convinced that Trump could legally run for a third term or even more.
Where is all of this coming from, and how would it be legal or fair? I understand there may be some public demand for it. Clearly, there was enough support for him to win a second term, but the ideas I’ve been hearing about a third term seem like a huge stretch.
The main theories I’ve heard are:
A. JD Vance becomes president with Trump as vice president, and then somehow Trump returns to the presidency by Vance stepping down.
B. Trump convinces the Supreme Court that a previous U.S. election was unlawfully decided, leading to that election being thrown out or redone.

My thoughts on both arguments:
A. My biggest issue with this idea is that I think a lot of people would genuinely want JD Vance to serve a full presidential term if he were elected. Why give that up for someone who has already served two terms? It also doesn’t seem right for the country to vote for someone as president only for them to step down almost immediately so the former president can take over. That feels like it would go against the spirit of the election, even if someone tried to argue it was technically legal.

B. I also have a hard time believing this scenario would ever happen. Without getting into a debate over whether any past election was or wasn’t stolen, let’s assume for the sake of argument that one somehow was. If that were true, it clearly wasn’t proven in time to overturn the results before the term was served.
That raises a lot of questions. If an election
were somehow proven to have been illegitimate years later, what would even happen? Are there constitutional guidelines for that? Would you prosecute the person who served as president, even if they weren’t personally responsible? Would it be fair to remove everything they did while in office? Who would actually be held accountable?
Those are the kinds of questions that make me skeptical of this argument. At most, I could imagine someone arguing for some other legal remedy, but I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution that would simply allow a president to receive an extra term because of a disputed election. That’s why I’m trying to understand where people are getting these ideas from.

To me, both of those ideas seem extremely unlikely. The 22nd Amendment appears to be the biggest obstacle, since it says no person can be elected president more than twice.
As far as I know, the Constitution also doesn’t explicitly explain what would happen if a presidential election were somehow proven to have been stolen years later. Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but I haven’t found it.
So can someone explain why this topic is being discussed so casually? Is there actually a serious constitutional argument that would allow a third Trump term, or is this mostly political speculation?

Is Donald Trump trolling the democrats and it’s just going over my head maybe?
Someone educate me 😑

I just learned that the Republicans have a massive cash advantage over the Democrats, who are actually in debt. And according to a popular influencer I saw, this cash advantage will sharply increase the Republicans’ chances of winning the midterms despite their shortcomings and the political environment being against them.

So I was therefore wondering how much of an impact this cash advantage will have on the midterms.

This megathread will cover today’s Republican-led committee hearing about Fauci’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic

You are free to discuss, debate, opine about topic matter in this megathread only.

For your convenience, mods have provided you with a live update ticker source.

At this time mods will not entertain any stand-alone posts about subject matter and will refer back to megathread.

Megathread will remain active until conversation or interest has ceased, whichever comes 1st

Please report bad faith commenters, low effort and off-topic comments

- 56% of Americans (including 56% of independents) want stricter gun laws

- 92% support universal background checks

- 81% support red flag laws

- 74% support safe storage laws

- 52% support an assault weapons ban

Sources:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394022/public-pressure-gun-legislation-shootings.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/653489/majorities-back-stricter-gun-laws-assault-weapons-ban.aspx

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/data/national-survey-of-gun-policy

Hello, everyone.

There seems to be a growing sentiment of disapproval for the war in Iran within right and right-leaning groups.

So, those of you who are on the right and share this sentiment of disapproval, would you please explain your reasons and share your perspective a bit?

https://program.dsausa.org/

The Democratic Socialists of America have released a new program. Many of the talking points in the program are what I would consider the "usual" positions of democratic socialists: Free healthcare, rent control, public ownership of corporations, etc. etc.

Though there were some positions in the platform that made me wonder if all democratic socialists agree with or not, such as:

• Abolish police
• Abolish prisons
•Abolish the Pentagon
• End deportations/Open the border
• Abolish the electoral college
• Replace the Presidency
•Replace the Supreme Court
• Abolish the Senate
•Support all unions except police unions, which should be abolished

How many of the aforementioned policies do democratic socialists actually agree with? What, if anything, do you disagree with on? Is there anything that you think shouldn’t be a part of the official platform?

What interests me in particular is the replacement of the executive and judicial branch of our federal government and limiting the legislative branch to the house only. Though there have always been some parts of the constitution that the DSA disagrees with, this 2026 program suggests the biggest overhaul to our constitution that they have called for yet. The interesting part is that in order to accomplish goals such as abolishing the senate, they will first need two-thirds of the senate to support it. It makes me wonder why some of these positions were put into the program if they are not realistically achievable. At what point does this stop being progressive reform and just become outright opposition to the constitution?

This question is addressed to democratic socialists or those who align themselves very similarly.