u/Raichu4u

One thing that seems kind of strange about the modern political divide on environmental issues is where a lot of the conservative electorate actually lives. Rural America is significantly more Republican than urban America, meaning a pretty large part of the conservative base lives around farmland, forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife, hunting, fishing, and generally much more undeveloped land than someone living in a major city. Many studies in the modern era have found rural voters increasingly align with the Republican Party.

Yet environmental protection has one of the largest partisan gaps of basically any major political issue. In Pew's 2024 polling, 63% of Democrats said protecting the environment should be a top priority for the federal government compared with only 23% of Republicans. On climate change specifically, it was 59% of Democrats compared with 12% of Republicans.

It seems like there should at least theoretically be room for a pretty strong conservative environmental movement based around things like preserving rural land, keeping lakes and rivers clean, protecting wildlife populations, maintaining hunting and fishing, and preventing pollution from ruining places people actually live around.

Instead, environmentalism has become overwhelmingly associated with the left, while conservative politics tends to emphasize property rights, less regulation, fossil fuel development, and opposition to a lot of environmental regulation.

Why did environmental conservation never really become a major part of conservative politics, especially considering how much of the Republican electorate lives in rural America?

I obtained these tickets during the presale for Toronto, and unfortunately I learned that both A. I am in Toronto for another concert the week prior and B. A show was announced in my hometown which means I would not have to travel and get a hotel room and everything. So this means I do need to sell these.

The tickets seem great, it's right at the front row of the lower bowl right by an isle. I personally have never been to this venue, but AViewFromMySeat seemed very good for this.

Local Ontario laws prevent any ticket reselling higher than the face value of the ticket I paid, which was CAD $113.05. So I am looking to sell here first to a genuine fan before putting these on a 3rd party reseller.

I will only sell on Paypall with Good and Service protection for the safety of both of us, or any other apps with similar levels of protection! Please check my comment history/internet footprint if you want, I have a huge internet footprint underneath this account on many other places on the web.

WARNING: Post tagged NSFW due to injured robin. The injury is not gory or anything of that nature, I just wanted to tag it this as a sort of warning in advance.

Something recently happened yesterday that nobody wants to find when doing yardwork; just moments before spraying the hose into our garden, a fledgling robin was in there, unable to walk, and could only awkwardly flap away small distances. Normally you are NOT supposed to interfere with birds in this stage of their life, as awkward movements/behaviors can simply be explained by what is simply the bird learning to become a bird (and it is also very illegal for federally protected birds)! But this robin had a noticable leg injury that prevented it from even standing on the ground, and would collapse on its own weight many times. Its parent was around, and actually fed it a worm about five minutes before we captured it with a towel. But this absolutely seemed like an injury that needed human intervention.

In a rush to find any resources to rehab/care for this bird, I got led to Bird Center of Michigan, a nonprofit that is one of the few permitted places in SE Michigan to rehabilitate federally protected songbirds. I was on the phone with someone right away, able to text a picture of the bird to confirm its injury, and was originally led to a local animal hospital that was unfortunately closed for the day already. Bird Center then told me that they were able to take the robin in if I was able to make the drive to their center in Saline, which I did not hesitate to do. Upon arrival, the robin was accepted instantly, and was given both oxygen and pain medicine, and told injuries for songbirds like these were quite common, but was told that the robin was going to be joining a class of other orphaned or injured rehabilitated birds. I was even given a card with a number and bird ID to text to check the status of the robin's care in the upcoming days.

I realized that in my rush of finding literally ANYWHERE for this bird to go, I did not do any research into what Bird Center was all about. The more I have looked into them after the fact, I am starting to see how much tremendous work that they do for local species within Michigan, and making sure that our feathered friends have a fighting chance when they are in situations like these.

I really have to clarify that I am not an employee, affiliated with, or that I even personally know someone who works with Bird Center of Michigan. I am simply a guy who brought an injured bird to their fantastic staff. Nonprofits like this are always looking for donations, and I for sure left a donation when I dropped the bird off yesterday. I do want to use this post as an opportunity to shine some light on a fantastic organization within SE Michigan. Funds can be tight for animal rehabs like this, and they are always looking for donations to cover the costs, as I saw that it can cost $118 to properly rehabilitate a bird like this. Donation page will be below:

Donate to Bird Center of Michigan

One cultural obstacle is that American prison discourse often treats harsh punishment as normal, expected, or even deserved. Prison rape jokes are still common. “Don’t drop the soap” is basically a stock punchline. Solitary confinement is often depicted as just a scary but deserved punishment. Brutal prison conditions are usually framed less as a rights issue and more as “well, they shouldn’t have committed crimes.” Even when people agree the system is broken, there seems to be a huge emotional block around saying prisoners deserve enforceable rights.

That creates a real political problem, because the public does seem to recognize that prisons are failing in some basic ways. A 2025 Gallup poll found that only 24% of Americans rated prisons positively for keeping inmates safe, and only 16% rated them positively for rehabilitation.

But the public also still leans heavily toward punishment. Gallup also found in 2023 that 58% of Americans said the criminal justice system was “not tough enough,” compared with only 14% saying it was “too tough”.

The contradiction is pretty obvious: voters can believe prisons are unsafe and ineffective while still reacting negatively to anything framed as “prisoner rights”.

The rights-abuse side is not theoretical either. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 4.1% of adult prison inmates reported sexual victimization in 2023–24, including 2.3% by another inmate and 2.2% by facility staff. The ACLU also notes that the U.S. is the only democracy without an independent national authority to monitor prison conditions and enforce minimum health and safety standards

So what is the politically viable framing here if one were wanting to get people or politicians onboard with prisoner rights and justice? Is there a path forward to get a voting electorate to view incarceration differently?

Presidents often enter office with some version of a national unity message. In Biden’s 2021 inaugural address, he said, “I will be a President for all Americans,” and added that he would fight as hard for those who did not support him as for those who did.

Trump’s second presidency has taken a noticeably different rhetorical and governing style. His 2025 inaugural address emphasized that “during every single day of the Trump administration,” he would “put America first”, with efforts to reverse the previous administration's policy. Since then, several major fights have been framed around conflict with Democratic-led states, cities, institutions, media, universities, and parts of the federal bureaucracy. For example, the administration has pursued actions against sanctuary jurisdictions, including efforts to identify and penalize cities, counties, and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. With other policy, the style seems

Supporters would likely argue that this is not governing only for Republicans, but carrying out the agenda voters elected Trump to pursue, especially on immigration, federal bureaucracy, crime, education, and cultural issues. Critics would argue that the style is less about representing the country as a whole and more about rewarding one coalition while using federal power against political opponents or jurisdictions aligned with the other party.

There is also a forward-looking issue. Any future hypothetical Democratic administration or candidates have seemingly faced pressure to reverse major Trump-era policies (or outright stated they would reverse these policies), just as Trump has focused heavily on reversing Biden-era policies. That creates a cycle where each party increasingly treats control of the presidency as a chance to undo the other side’s agenda, rather than build a durable national consensus, and thus creating a bit of a feedback loop.

Moving to the post of the title, is the “president for all Americans” idea still a meaningful standard, or has modern politics made that concept mostly obsolete?

---

On a historic sidenode and perhaps part two of the question- The phrase "A president for all Americans" can imply that past presidents governed in a less partisan or more universally representative way. But earlier presidents also pursued partisan agendas, rewarded their coalitions, ignored or alienated parts of the country, and used unity language while governing in ways many Americans opposed.

Is the concept of a “president for all Americans” meaningfully weaker today than it used to be? Or was it always more of a ceremonial ideal than an actual governing standard?

There has been controversy lately as AI has improving to be distinguishable from convincing deepfakes, especially to those that are not familiar with the technology, and cannot find easy signs of it. It has been showing up more prominently within campaigns, PAC messaging, and election-adjacent media. Some of it is basic image generation or editing, but some examples involve realistic depictions of real candidates or public figures saying or doing things they did not actually say or do.

A few high-attention examples of it being used in major races:

• An AI-generated robocall in New Hampshire mimicked Biden’s voice and told Democratic voters not to vote in the primary
• The DeSantis campaign circulated AI-generated images showing Trump hugging Anthony Fauci, which became one of the more widely covered early examples of AI-generated campaign imagery.
• In the 2026 Texas Senate race, the NRSC released an AI-generated ad showing Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico appearing to speak into a camera, even though he never filmed the video. Reuters reported that the ad used AI to have him recite old social media posts, with only a small “AI generated” label in the corner.

Within all of the links, most comment on a trend of AI generation being much more prevalent within political campaigns. Concerns are that realistic AI content could spread false information quickly, especially close to Election Day, before campaigns, journalists, or voters have time to verify it. There is also the reverse problem, where real audio, images, or video could be dismissed as AI-generated once voters become used to seeing fake political media.

Where should the line be drawn, and what would be consequences for banning AI at various stages in the political process, or letting it advance as is?

I really want to ask this as I came home to my tank tonight with a very injured hillstream loach. I currently have 8 within my Hillstream only tank and noticed this one here in particular looking pretty bloodied with a not so good patch on his other side.

I attached a photo of my tank, but I took scaping incredibly serious. I fishkeep with my fiance in various different tanks, and we have noticed similar injuries to loaches like this before in a different variety of shapes and sizes, in community tanks, where their sizes are less, etc.

One thing I took incredibly seriously was the only rocks can be smooth river rock, absolutely no slate, or anything with a sharp edge. My plants are just an Amazon Sword and a small anubias. 3 airstones are burried deep within the gravel and are not sharp at all. When I bought the two pieces of wood, I very specially chose ones that dig not have any jagged ends. And they naturally have gotten way softer due to this tank being active for a year.

I just wonder if hillstreams do have the capacity to cause injury to each other, be indirectly. My gender ratio is close to 50/50, but I do have a larger aggressive male who's aggression comes out on feeding nights.

Just looking to see anyone who has had similar experiences because this is honestly kind of a bummer. I've read that aggression for them is "essentially like bumper carts" but I honestly don't know what could have caused this.

With federal deficits and debt continuing to rise, one question that may become more politically relevant is how future tax increases would actually be presented to voters.

For decades, tax cuts have often been one of the easier things to sell in American politics. The benefit is immediate and easy to understand: voters keep more of their money. The downside is usually more abstract, delayed, and easier to argue about later: higher deficits, more debt, greater pressure on public services, or larger future interest costs. That creates an obvious political incentive to cut taxes now and leave the consequences to future lawmakers and voters.

For some brief history, average federal tax rates have generally fallen over the last several decades, including for middle-income households. Tax Policy Center data based on CBO figures shows the middle income quintile had an average federal tax rate of 18.2% in 1990, compared with 13.0% in 2019.

The federal government is already running large deficits outside of a major recession or world war. CBO’s 2026 budget outlook projects the federal deficit rising from $1.9 trillion in 2026 to $3.1 trillion in 2036, with debt held by the public reaching 120% of GDP by 2036. CBO also notes that rising net interest costs are a major driver of that increase. This is not just a partisan talking point. GAO describes the federal government as being on an “unsustainable fiscal path,” with debt held by the public projected to grow faster than the economy over the long term.

A common response is that future revenue can come mainly from taxing the wealthy or corporations. That may be part of the answer, and there are strong arguments for it on distributional grounds. But it may not fully resolve the scale of the problem by itself. The Tax Policy Center notes that individual income taxes and payroll taxes are the two largest sources of federal revenue. CBPP similarly shows that individual income taxes made up roughly 51% of federal revenue in fiscal year 2025, while payroll taxes made up about 35%. There is also the political question of whether a future Congress and president would actually be willing to pursue higher taxes on wealthy households or corporations, but that is a separate hurdle from whether the math works.

CBO’s deficit-reduction options also show why this is hard to solve only with narrow tax hikes. Taxes on capital gains, carried interest, or a slightly higher corporate tax rate would raise real money, but not nearly enough by themselves compared with the size of projected deficits. The options that raise much larger sums tend to be broader taxes, such as payroll tax increases or a value-added tax.

That creates a political problem. If the U.S. wants to preserve Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, disaster relief, infrastructure, and other federal commitments while also limiting the growth of debt and interest payments, broader tax increases may eventually become part of the reality to maintain services and entitlements. At the same time, American politics has spent decades making broad-based tax increases nearly toxic.

Given these fiscal projections:

1. How would a future broad-based federal tax increase actually be sold to American voters, especially after decades of politicians treating tax cuts as the easier political default?
2. Would voters be more likely to accept higher taxes if they were framed around protecting specific programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, rather than deficit reduction in the abstract?
3. Is “tax the rich” likely to remain the main politically viable answer, or does the long-term fiscal picture eventually force a broader conversation about middle-class taxation too?

Tump’s first administration had unusually high turnover by historical standards. Brookings tracked his White House “A Team” and found 92% turnover by January 20, 2021, with the churn exceeding previous presidents even well before the end of the term. Brookings’ more recent assessment of Trump’s second term says the staffing has been more stable than the first, but still high relative to past presidents. Recent departures and reshuffles in 2026 also suggest the pattern has not really disappeared.

What seems worth discussing is the basic question of why this has remained a pattern across both administrations. Is it mostly about how Trump runs an administration, or does it say something broader about the kind of people he brings in and the expectations placed on them once they are there?

High turnover can be read as a sign of instability, but some may see it as normal for an administration that places a heavy emphasis on alignment and control. How much should turnover be treated as meaningful on its own, versus just being one feature of how this White House operates?