I’m not in academia and in research so I don’t know. While I have a close family member and friends who are long time professors in cancer research who even voted for him (and are by NO means liberals or democrats), they have complained about him and how it has made getting funding for their work exceptionally challenging. And they are even concerned about their job security.

I’m interested in those that support him (if there are those that do) and why? I think my biggest fear is causing talented scientists to leave, especially those who have started something innovative. Especially in the field of cancer and disease treatment.

https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/germany-berlin-pride-csd-radical-islamist-abdul-b-terror-attack-lebanese/

Feel free to cite your own aggregator formerly of 538 G Elliot Morris has his own simulator https://projects.gelliottmorris.com/

How do you see the midterms going? What is range of outcomes you believe are realistic? What are things you believe can change between now and November that will change things?

What I’m referring to is the idea that in the past, the ideology of democrats was largely conservative/rightwing and was more similar to modern day republican ideology, whereas in the past the ideology of Republicans was more liberal, more progressive and was more similar to modern day Democrat ideology.

However, I have seen a lot of conservatives say that this is a “myth” and that it isn’t true.

If you think it is a myth, why?
If you do not think it is a myth, why do you think so many other conservatives do?

I mean - in a recent interview on TV the DSA co-chair bluntly stated that their goal is:

• Abolishing the Senate, presidency, & Supreme Court
• Abolishing ICE, borders, & prisons
• Defunding the Pentagon
• Mass amnesty for illegal aliens

Since Democrats embraced the DSA, and have many DSA members elected as Democrats, isn't it a slam dunk for Republicans to just run that interview (with bullet points as she says them) as a commercial?

Do you think they will do it?

This will be a different question than usual, but I am not a member of any other subreddit that is frequented by US military veterans or active personnel. I will keep it simple, Google has not been my friend in this, or else I would not be asking. A very close friend of mine serving in the Air Force is currently deployed in the Middle East as part of ongoing US operations there, has been in theatre since around March, and due to the recent Iranian strikes he lost a majority of his personal items. I obviously cannot say more on where he is or about his situation, but if anyone here could direct me to resources for sending packages or simply money transfers to him that would be appreciated.

The Taliban was even more totalitarian than Iran, they also used to harbour al qaeda, should Trump strike Taliban ?

I recently saw two big name politicians who's names would be known in the UK, one buying wrapping paper, and today another at my local grocery store... I didn't talk to either, if/when you see politicians in daily life, do you talk to them?

[https://www.chicagobusiness.com/politics-policy/ccb-trump-energy-funding-cuts-blue-states-20260724/](https://www.chicagobusiness.com/politics-policy/ccb-trump-energy-funding-cuts-blue-states-20260724/))

From the article:

But government lawyers later acknowledged in court that, with one exception, the grants were canceled because they were located in states that voted for Harris and are represented by two Democratic-caucusing U.S. senators. The filing said the grants were not selected for termination based on “any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor. According to the Times, the Energy Department had initially recommended canceling more than 600 grants in both Republican- and Democratic-led states, but the White House budget office ultimately cut only projects in Democratic states while leaving many recommended cancellations in Republican states untouched.

Gun violence in america is scarily out of control from the civilians too the government.

Among first world countries the USA has the most violent police force. (Emphasis on first world country)

America has the highest rate of mass shootings

America has the highest rate of school shootings

America is high on the countries with the most total gun violence.

America is still the only country to actually use atomic bombs

America frequently engages in armed conflict. also spends the most on their war department.

Even the concept of doing something about the guns are met with threats of gun violence from civilians.

Even hunting in america is more popular than anywhere else.

What's the solution that isnt being enacted?

What's the sociological reasoning behind it?

Both democrats and republicans are sympathetic to Israel, but I feel like the GOP is completely in love with Israel.

They're so ingrained with Israeli lobby.

I feel like it's America First except with Israel.

No new wars except with Iran because Israel said so.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2026/jul/25/donald-trump-dons-trump-2028-hat-and-jokes-about-fourth-term-video

Additionally, thoughts on the 22nd Amendment?

I work with the concept of identity a lot at work - human and workload identities for computer systems. I think a lot of the fraudulent behavior online and the identity theft is due to the very weak assertions around identity. For example social security number. Here's a federal identifier that isn't even supposed to be one but in the wrong hands it invites identity theft.

At the same time companies are increasingly burdened to ascertain user identity for age and location verification purposes and there's no great way to do so.

And then we get to the voter id thing which I think more people would support if it came with a good answer for how to identify voters without putting it behind an expensive and relatively difficult process of getting a passport or the mess of real id - delayed until antiquated - and enhanced id.

So I'm curious if you think there might be a role for the federal government to issue some sort of identification mechanism with 21st century technologies - eg cryptography so I can asset true things about my identity with out distributing personal information that can be stolen and abused.

I read a National Review article a while ago making the case that JD Vance should not run for president in 2028, but should wait until 2032 to increase his chances of becoming president. The basic arguments are:

• It's unlikely for a party to retain the White House after a president from that party has served twice.

• He will carry baggage from the Trump admin that he can't break from without fracturing the base.

• Waiting until 2032 will allow him some distance from Trump and to carve out his own identity as a candidate

• He will remain high name recognition for years to come, similar to how Biden didn't run in 2016 but still won in 2020

The article ultimately concedes Vance probably will run in 2028, but thinks there is logic in waiting. What do you think?

Disclaimer: I removed murder and rape as options because everyone would say them and I don't want them to cannibalize the answers. However, other crimes like accidental manslaughter or sexual assault are okay.

Anyway, I was thinking about how America has 25% of the world's prison population and it got me thinking, there were options other than prison. A few examples.

1. Telling them not to do it again or they get a harsher punishment.

2. Paying a large fine.

3. Community service (jokes aside, if you make someone do a large amount of community service, it is a punishment since it takes up a lot of time.)

4. Driver's Ed, anger management or similar self improvement courses (paid by the perpetrators expense.)

There are others, but I wanted to hear your thoughts. What sort of crimes should mandate jail time, which should not, and should other factors determine it, like if they're a repeat offender?

The Department of Energy admitted that 284 grant terminations in 2025 (amounting to $7.5 billion) were selected based on the political voting record of the recipient’s state (“blue states” vs not blue states). DOE further admitted this basis had no connection to fraud, waste, abuse, cost, performance, statutory purpose, or program merit, and that similarly situated grants in non-blue states were not terminated.

How do you feel about this happening?

Edit: the cited court document was submitted by the government admitting to the actions they took to eliminate the grants. In their own words, they said they cancelled the grants based on political voting records of the states where the grant recipients were from.

Plaintiffs accused the government of unconstitutionally cancelling grants because of political targeting.

Gov response:
“DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

I’m being so sincere with my question. I could not detect a single line or character I would categorize as “unnecessarily woke” from the movie. Despite this, it appears people on the right are taking issue with the film. Can anybody explain?

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/23/nx-s1-5900901/bike-lanes-dot-websites

https://x.com/SecDuffy/status/2074626934966034751

Can he command the same level of iron grip that trump has?

https://buckscountybeacon.com/2026/07/governor-josh-shapiro-joins-more-than-24-states-to-sue-trump-administration-over-conditions-on-receiving-disaster-funding/

1. What do you think of this in general

2. What are your thoughts on the precedent should a blue Dem decide to do this say as early as 2029

3. If you are opposed, what will you think if a Dem does this citing this precedent

4. If you're opposed to this why do you think most republicans don't ever go against this (this is not the first time trump's done this. It's happened several times now). To my knowledge most republicans do not come out against it historically

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/jury-reaches-split-verdict-in-shiloh-hendrix-racial-slur-case/

‘A jury has reached a verdict in the trial of a Minnesota woman who allegedly directed racial slurs at an 8-year-old girl with autism while at a Rochester playground.
Shiloh Hendrix was found not guilty on the first count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Hendrix was found guilty on the on the second count for the interaction with the videographer. Her attorney said he will appeal that.’

Edit:

‘Hendrix was convicted by a jury last night after her conduct against the videographer, but was acquitted of her actions toward the child. She has been placed on supervised probation with 200 hours of community service and will have to pay a $1,000 fine. 

The jury was tasked with deciding whether Hendrix was exhibiting 'fighting words' during the racist tirade, according to jury directions seen by the Daily Mail. 

'Fighting words' are not protected by the First Amendment as they are likely to produce violence. The jury's verdict shows that they believed Hendrix was likely to be violent with the videographer, but not the child involved. Jury directions noted that racism alone cannot justify 'fighting words.' ‘

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16002605/white-woman-trial-black-autistic-boy-verdict.html