u/Vert_der_Ferk25

As US citizens, we can mobilize, organize, boycott, and protest; we have many options for showing our discontent. Unfortunately, we also have a two-party system where there may be more names on the ballot, but one of the two major-party candidates is going to win. Period.

He said in this interview that he could not bring himself to vote for Harris, (we also know that he didn't vote for Hillary or Biden), and he rationalizes it in part by saying that, in his state, his vote didn't matter. He also said that he thinks that Bruce Springsteen is doing the right thing, and he respects him for that. They cast the video as Tom "Fighting Fascism," and I don't understand how not voting against fascism is actually "fighting fascism". You can protest all you want; you can march, hold rallies, stage sit-ins, whatever, but if you aren't voting AND encouraging your supporters to vote against the fascist candidate, are you still "fighting fascism"?

During the 2024 election cycle, Tom Morello's documented public commentary was focused more heavily on criticizing establishment Democrats and leadership on the left than on Donald Trump. His active public platform leading into the 2024 election was primarily used to challenge the Democratic Party. He argues that his underlying politics remain firmly against the right-wing and Trump, but his public critiques surrounding the 2024 election were overwhelmingly directed at establishment Democrats and Kamala Harris. Are you "fighting fascism" if you're undercutting the one party in the US that can stop fascism? His 2024 public activism was noticeably different from his 2016 efforts with the Prophets of Rage and anti-Trump mobilization.

I watched all four hours of the Jack Smith hearing live yesterday. I saw the actual answers and the moments where big accusations fell apart live on camera. Then I logged on today, saw the media coverage, and felt completely gaslit.

In the actual room, we saw claims debunked in real time. But today, the viral clips show senators shouting about disbarment, while the answers that disproved their points were completely edited out.

This feels like textbook gaslighting. They are insisting a totally different story happened right in front of us, relying on the fact that most people don't watch any of it, and most who do only watch the manufactured outrage clips.

Has anyone else experienced this whiplash after watching a live hearing? How do you process being told to disbelieve what you literally saw with your own eyes? This feels 100% Orwellian, and I don't see it from "both sides"

10 years ago, it was unthinkable. Here's an incomplete list.

• The president publicly directing the Fed Chair.
• The president publicly directing the AG and DOJ.
• Active Cabinet Secretaries attending campaign rallies.
• The systematic removal of IGs.
• Direct administrative involvement in corporate and market decisions.
• Bypassing Congress for spending.
• We are overriding Professional Merit and Military Succession Traditions.
• Republicans are firing our top leadership while we are engaged in an active war.
• We're conducting polygraph tests of senior military leaders and civilian officials.

None of this is normal for the United States. This would be more normal in other countries that are less democratic and more authoritarian.

The list could really be much longer. I haven't even considered the way we're handling international affairs right now. We seem to be engaged in a trade war where we're using memes as a PR weapon against an ally.

What is something that you see happening today that you thought would have been unthinkable 10 years ago?

They mentioned the “House of the Lord, Holiness to the Lord” three times before we made it past the lobby. It was weird.

They mentioned the endowment, baptism, sealings. They didn’t mention the initiatory at all. I know why, but thought it was worth pointing out.

Following her defeat by Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in August, Rep. Haley Stevens immediately conceded and committed her backing to his general election campaign.

Despite an intense primary that featured tens of millions in outside spending, Stevens pledged her support to El-Sayed, noting that internal primary differences pale in comparison to defeating Republican candidate Mike Rogers in November. Stevens aligned with Michigan’s broader Democratic establishment—including state leadership—to present a unified front for the general election.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett formally endorsed state Rep. James Talarico immediately after he won the Senate primary. Since then, she has deliberately kept her distance from actively campaigning alongside him on the trail. Crockett declined an invitation to headline the Texas Democratic State Convention with Talarico, publicly describing his campaign's outreach as an "afterthought". She emphasized that the onus is on Talarico to directly earn the trust of those voters rather than relying on her to bridge the gap.

She talks about black voters. AG Paxton led aggressive state legal action challenging voter procedures that directly impact diverse urban centers like Harris County. Nearly 80% of black voters in Texas support Democrats who prioritize expanded healthcare, public education funding, and civil rights protections. Cuts to social safety programs disproportionately impact working-class minorities. Who will be harmed by a Ken Paxton win? Certainly, the working-class minorities in Texas. Should Talarico have to explicitly "earn" their vote, or is it in their best interest to see the difference between the candidates and vote in their own best interests?

I’m asking this sincerely. I'm not trolling, and I have no interest in fighting.

Right now, I’m in "vote blue no matter who" mode. The kitchen is on fire, so arguing about dirty dishes in the sink feels pointless until we put it out. At this point, I'm not even interested in arguing about who started the fire.

Everything is lined up for Democrats to take some power back this November. Between housing costs, economic stagnation, endless foreign entanglement, and blatant corruption from the White House, the the republicans are giving us every reason to beat them.

The absolute hypocrisy of Congressional Republicans pretending not to see this level of self-dealing, corruption, and abuse of power is so obvious that the average American actually seems to be noticing.

I fully understand the anger toward establishment Dems and corporate leadership. But the reality is that those moderates represent a massive chunk of the electorate. Reddit isn't representative of the whole country, and Jeffries' victory margins prove that his constituency actually backs him. His margin of victory in his district was comparable to the number of registered DSA members in the entire US (113K to 120k). Reddit progressives are actually not representative of the average US voter, even the left-leaning ones.

The single biggest threat to a blue wave is internal fracturing. Dividing us is easier than ending a war, fixing the economy, or releasing a healthcare plan (or the Epstein files, for that matter, when your name is all over them).

Tearing down moderate Dems right now only hands seats back to Republicans. Can we please avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory this one time? Am I wrong?

If you don't like political questions, then scroll on by. I tried to warn you.

Please, don't think this is AI just because I use bullet points.

• Tax cuts, along with elevated federal spending, significantly expanded national deficits and debt.
• Import tariffs served as direct taxes on American households, raising the cost of everyday goods, while trade conflicts destabilized key domestic sectors.
• Persistent attacks on what we used to see as norms, judicial bodies, and good federal agencies are constantly undermined by this president.
• Unilateral moves alienated our international allies, diminishing trust in U.S. forign policy and American soft power.
• Publicly giving voice to fringe theories over scientific consensus and public health institutions.
• Partisan rhetoric actively exploiting cultural and political fault lines, worsening social fragmentation nationwide.
• Disregard for traditional conflict-of-interest guidelines blurred the lines between private interest and public office, diluting historical standards of executive ethics.
• Legislative allies largely surrendered their constitutional duty to act as a co-equal check on executive power, reducing congressional oversight to a rubber stamp.
• Institutions that were designed to be independent (the Federal Reserve and the DOJ Law Enforcement agencies) are now satellite arms of the White House or used as political props in campaign events.

If he were intentionally doing damage, how would we know? What (if anything) would he be doing differently?

And left staff and the media as a decoy?

Really?

This is a unique set of tax rules that don't apply to anyone else in the US, that he negotiated with himself.

I don't understand how this is supposed to work, or why it would be acceptable to anyone, including his supporters. It goes far beyond audits. It grants sweeping protection against any existing federal tax liabilities, unpaid tax balances, or IRS financial judgments stemming from returns filed up to May 18, 2026. And this was the reduced deal. It was much more broad and generous.

Even if you voted for him, attended his rallies, bought his merch, and participated in social media discussions supporting him, how does this deal not scream corruption?

Why does a government official get skewered, while the executive, the president who sets policy, gets a pass?

“It’s the economy, stupid!”

I’ve seen:

1. It’s fantastic! Prices are way down and only Trump could have done this!

2. It’s not as good as it could be but it’s a small price to pay for a denuclearized Iran.

3. Sure it’s not good, but that’s Biden’s fault.

Only one of those messages aligns with his campaign promises, and it’s the one that’s the least tethered to reality.

Current US military pressure on Iran is failing and draining U.S. resources, leaving no easy choices.

The Trump regime must choose between more widespread military escalation, risking a regional war and global energy shock,or a negotiated settlement that accepts Iranian influence, particularly giving Iran greater control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Because the status quo is unsustainable, a negotiated settlement is the most realistic path forward unless the U.S. commits to massive military escalation. Which will the administration choose?

From Andrew Tate on Twitter

>Who will fight the good fight, if the “good” sell their strongest soldiers to the devil.

>Sending your warriors to certain death in the name of what? For who?

>God frowns upon betrayal.

If you don't know about this program, there is a federal economic relief package designated as the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program. It was created by the USDA; the one-time payments were designed as emergency liquidity to help American growers stay afloat amidst rising input costs, high fuel and fertilizer prices, and retaliatory trade disruptions. The program provides a temporary financial "bridge" until major long-term structural subsidies from the One Big Beautiful Bill kick in later in the fall.

The USDA calculates payments on a per-acre basis using existing 2025 acreage reports, meaning most row-crop farmers did not need to file separate applications. Some example payment rates include:

• Cotton: $117.35 per acre
• Oats: $81.75 per acre
• Corn: $44.36 per acre
• Soybeans: $51.45 per acre
• Wheat: $32.05 per acre

There are rules and limitations, including an income cap (individuals earning $900,000+ per year are ineligible), a payment cap (individuals can only receive up to $155,000), and exclusions (livestock operations aren't eligible).

This is after the $12B that was already approved and issued through the budget reconciliation bill earlier this year (Winter 2025, spring 2026). And it's happening before the OBBB structural bailout happens.

In other words, if Congress passes the active July reconciliation bill, the federal government will have funneled roughly $55.4 billion in total direct payments to farmers over the course of 2026.

Should we be doing this?

Taken from the Mike Levin investigative article with the Wall Street Journal

Days before Trump took office, a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates national security adviser paid $500,000,000 for a 49% stake in the Trump family crypto venture, World Liberty Financial.

Trump’s own financial disclosure released last month shows he personally pocketed $263,000,000 from that sale. It was one of the largest single chunks of his income for the year.

Now the payoff.

Last week Trump’s Commerce Department reclassified the UAE so its main AI company, controlled by the same royal who bought into his crypto firm, can freely buy the most advanced American chips. It moved the UAE out of a group that included China and into the group with our closest allies.

I’ve noticed that in many political discussions that I’ve had here there is often a rhetorical escape-hatch deployed that includes a whataboutism. This escape isn’t an issue for me since I see whataboutism as an effective way to put hypocrisy on display.

“Democrats don’t care about fraud in Minnesota!”

Yeah we do. And that’s why we’re upset that the president is convicted of fraud, and we care that he’s pardoning all these other people convicted of fraud.

I don’t have a problem with whataboutisms, but I hate it when the “whatabouts” aren’t equal.

This brings me to “differences in degrees vs differences in kind”

A 5 mph wind and a 50 mph wind are still wind, but one is a different degree. If you compare an apple with a rock, that’s a difference in kind.

Someone argued with me that NPR is left leaning. They did that as a “whataboutism” in a discussion about Fox News being conservative. NPR is left-leaning in their editorial position, but not their reporting. Fox News is right-wing all the time

In another discussion someone said to me “Biden did the same thing as Trump with his classified documents, but only Trump got prosecuted.”

The act of holding documents is a “degree” of the same action, but the intent to hide them versus the act of returning them is a “difference in kind” because it shifts the situation from a mistake to a crime.

I am interested in whether we are suffering from a loss of nuance in how we categorize actions, or if this 'flattening' is a purposeful tool to win arguments by ignoring context.

In case you missed Carolla’s comment,

“Most every guy I know did what he's being accused of at one point or another with their girlfriend at some point after a night of drinking. It's basically like: I'm drunk, I'm horny, I weigh 50 pounds more than you, we're gonna have sex, it's not really rape because we sleep in the same bed and I'm just gonna pass out and then the next day I won't really remember what happened but I'll buy you some flowers. It's a basic drunken dude thing”.

Experts offered alternative explanations for the pool's condition before it was drained, noting that the "peeling" is likely a result of the new coating failing to adhere to the surface (delamination) rather than cutting. While federal court filings have mentioned that U.S. Park Police received reports of isolated damage, such as a "caulk over the foam sealant that was cut with a sharp knife," experts emphasize that delamination tears can easily be confused with purposeful damage, and they have not corroborated the existence of massive structural gashes.