u/Raichu4u

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?