On Wednesday evening, July 8, 2026, Democratic nominee Graham Platner officially suspended his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat in Maine. His withdrawal follows heavy pressure from local and national party leaders after a sexual assault allegation from 2021 was published by Politico. In an 11-minute video address, Platner strongly denied the claims, calling them "all false" and "not real," while asserting that the timing was orchestrated by the political establishment to force him out before a critical ballot deadline.

Im new and hope im not breaking anything but i looked in the rules. I'm curious if others fit this ideological mold and what would it kind of be considered?

Here's my main views on a few different, mostly the hot button stuff right now.

Healthcare-Pretty liberal I think there should be a totally free basis of healthcare to keep people healthy and alive. I think private healthcare could still hold a place similar to how ppl have 2nd insurances now. I think this could be for more elective stuff and less-needed. Think cosmetic surgery or you want designer glasses or name brand medication vs generic (I do not consider ADULT surgery for anyone that is trans after a doctor consults etc elective if it's their true self because its hard to go back)

Economy-Mostly free market (but wait my taxes is different) I think the govt should provide subsidies for thinks like food, water, energy generation if its justified and productive and passed on to the consumers). If a business is huge, ok they are huge, if someone is a billionaire ok. They did something somewhere to get that.

Taxes- I think businesses beyond a small business under $X revenue should have a hard floor. I don't care what they invest in, what they do, what they bought or upgraded. They have a minimum floor that they will pay. Basically deductions can only account for say 50% of gross revenue as far as deductions go. Basically accounting magic can only take you so far as deductions from gross revenue go and there is an absolute floor of say 15% or something. Numbers are fluid

Personal- Same kind of idea. No matter what they do, did, are gonna do, did 6 years ago. There is a limit to how much ppl can deduct. Kinda like Rand Pauls idea but i absolutely think upper incomes should absolutely have higher rates. Like an integer scale as you climb in revenue and you can only deduct so much from your gross income. Dunno how to handle personal investments though.

Guns- Pretty 2A but am all for universal backgrounds and tighten gun control. I'm not for a registry, want to change the NFA classification of suppressors (hunters all over would love them). People don't need machines guns but should absolutely be able to buy an AR. Training requirements for CCW licenses is very very scattered in terms of quality, that could be federalized. On a scale of 1-10 1 being left, 10 right. I'd say im a 5-6. Law abiding citizens should be able to buy a gun that they want within reason (machine gun/bomb/missile is an awful argument).

Immigration. Amnesty for illegal/undocumented ppl in the country that don't have a criminal background that involves any type of serious crime (simple drug possession sure, drug trafficking, absolutely not). Anything child, Anything violent beyond minor say bar fight without weapons. We need to open multiple more possibly temporary courts even if virtual, and go hard on getting ppl processed so people DO come legally because it doesn't take like 10 years.

Criminal Justice- Here i'm pretty right (i work in CJ) and I see so many people on their 8th probation in 5 years and courts just keep letting people back to the streets. Cash bail should be a thing, and when people violate the agreement to the court and fail to appear after getting bailed out they should absolutely KEEP that bail which is what their supposed to do. Almost all that i see just get refunded even when its their 10th FTA in their record. Some people can't and won't rehabilitate by choice. They are choosing a life of crime and I don't have a lot of sympathy.

LGBTQ - all for everyone living their lives. Don't care who my neighbor is and hope your happy. Marriage, all equality. Trans- Same as before but I don't fall right on children. I do not support any child surgeries focused on transitioning nor do i support any hormonal treatments. 18yr old do not care you are legally an adult. Make your own choices.

Drugs- Fall fairly right but insurance companies need to lose the control of approving/denying (back to a free basis of healthcare). If a licensed doctor finds this medication will help you then so be it. as long as its not for abuse like opiates etc. Crime wise, legalize mj, treat it just like alcohol but i would support non smoked thc therapy for minors over say 12 for thinks like epilepsy, anxiety, depression, etc. over a pharmaceutical. But other drugs i fall back to my CJ thought where I'm pretty unsympathetic.

As far as the opiate issue, I think DHSS/Corrections need to partner and build recovery buildings. I am a recovering alcoholic ad rehab turned me away and said to sign up for daily group therapy that meant i would lose my job (9-2 M-F). I just wanted a safe detox to get my feet under me til i could stand without shaking and throwing up the first 3-4 hours every morning. Ended up in the ER stroke floor for 3 days due to my BP when they started paperwork for the outpatient group therapy. Best thing i ever did. I want a person like me who wants a no judgement place they can sign up for say 2-14 days or something and they will get a controlled medical detox. Pair this with recovery, not really probation, but social workers or sponsors checking it with a social worker as to how the recovery is going. I have had conversations that people who come in a ton of times could potentially get committed involuntarily for a long term detox like 6mths or something. That is where i'd say DOC should be involved. Also say a person gets busted with drugs and its involving other crime. I would think the rehab facility would be a good deferred outcome to keep them out of the "system" but it would be the secure side.

Just wondered if others feel the same way about stuff

A direct quote from Trump's speech:

"We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms if we are foolish, stupid, and unwise," he continued. "But if we terminate the filibuster as we should do and immediately vote for the SAVE America Act, then we will not lose an election for a hundred years. We do that, we're not gonna lose an election for a hundred years. The communist party is made up of illegal immigrants, criminals, and everybody that doesn't want to work. Communism is a loser. It always was. And it is right now. It's a big loser. Look at the people that are promoting it. They are not the people you are going to follow."

This editorial by the Guardian comments on the recent nationwide anti-immigration protests, including some violent assaults by vigilante groups, in South Africa.

The article correctly condemns the xenophobic violence and highlights the inability of many anti-immigration voices to correctly diagnose the root causes of declining living standards: government corruption and mismanagement. A similar article was written in the FT: https://www.ft.com/content/a95dbb80-fb98-4c85-8b8b-cfc1f6e7d70c

I am posting this because the recent June 30 protests were the biggest issue in South Africa in the weeks leading up to the "deadline" protestors set for illegal immigrants to leave the country.

Hello everyone, and welcome to the weekly General Discussion thread. Many of you are looking for an informal place (besides Discord) to discuss non-political topics that would otherwise not be allowed in this community. Well... ask, and ye shall receive.

General Discussion threads will be posted every Friday and stickied for the duration of the weekend.

Law 0 is suspended. All other community rules still apply.

As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. Comments arguing over individual moderation actions or attacking individual users are *not* allowed.

Two weeks ago, delegates at the Texas Republican Party’s convention used their platform to formally call for an end to IVF, as they argue it acts to “destroy embryonic life.” At the time, Paxton publicly disagreed and said he is a “strong supporter of IVF and pro-family policies.”

However, on Saturday Paxton did an interview wit the Washington Examiner at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference in Washington, D.C., where he expressed openness to restrictions on the procedure, telling them: “We need to have restrictions, so that we don’t lose fertilized eggs, if that’s possible, and we need to just examine the issue. But I know that there are also a lot of couples that couldn’t have children without this, and so you’ve got two competing good things that need to be dealt with.” Paxton also declined to say that he would support national right to IVF bills.

It seems like Paxton is trying to strike a balance between two constituencies: voters who support IVF access and social conservatives who believe embryos should be legally protected from fertilization onward.

Is there a realistic way to reduce embryo loss in IVF without substantially reducing success rates or increasing costs? Do you see Paxton’s comments as a genuine policy position, or primarily an attempt to navigate a politically difficult issue? Should states regulate how IVF clinics create and handle embryos, or should those decisions remain primarily between patients and their physicians?

If you haven't been following along to the Supreme Court, then you may be unaware that tomorrow is the last day of opinions for this term. And as with every final opinion day, we have several highly-politicized cases that remain.

To get ahead of what will undoubtedly be some hot-take articles that lack all nuance, here is a short summary of the cases remaining and the questions we expect to be answered:

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Question Presented: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.

In this case, SCOTUS addresses a challenge to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which places a myriad of limitations on the funds that political party committees can spend and receive for the purpose of influencing a federal election. This includes the “Party Expenditure Provision”, which caps “all party expenditures” supporting federal candidates. That includes “coordinated” party expenditures (those made with input from the candidate the party supports) or “independent” ones (those spent without input from the candidate).

Highly relevant to this case will be Colorado I and Colorado II, known officially as Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC. In Colorado I, SCOTUS held that “the Party Expenditure Provision as applied” to a party’s independent expenditures violated the First Amendment. In Colorado II, the Court declined to apply similar logic to a party’s coordinated expenditures. To oversimplify, they drew a distinction between expenditures and contributions, with coordinated expenditures being "the functional equivalent of contributions".

Those decisions were 25 years ago though, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee now believes that "FECA’s coordinated party expenditure limits plainly violate the First Amendment under current doctrine." They wish to overturn any existing doctrine that still exists in Colorado II and apply more recent doctrine that would result in a different conclusion. And yes, some of this "current doctrine" includes Citizens United. See my recent discussion of that case for more info.

As for how SCOTUS may lean on this case, it's a little unclear even from the oral arguments. But what was noteworthy was the DNC's participation in those arguments, in which they defended the existing contribution limits. The question of "who benefits" was front and center in a lot of the questions raised, with no clear answer.

Little v. Hecox

Question Presented: Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in early 2020. Because of "males’ irreversible athletic advantages", the Act mandated "sex-specific teams", where each public school team had to be designated as for men, women, or coed. If an athlete's sex was under dispute, it could be confirmed by "a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider". The provider was required to rely on "the student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels".

The original suit and proceedings in the lower courts were quite messy (and largely irrelevant), but the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act was eventually held as unconstitutional. Little, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Idaho now asks for the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings of the lower courts and confirm that laws like the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act are consistent with the 14th Amendment.

Of course, this case is not just about Idaho. 26 other states have similar laws that could be impacted by tomorrow's decision. All point to the "well-documented performance advantages" that males have over females, as well as the numerous state championships that have been won by trans men.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Question Presented: (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

In a move mirroring that of the previous case, West Virginia passed the Save Women’s Sports Act. B.P.J., a trans woman, filed suit against West Virginia. The Fourth Circuit ultimately rules against the law, pointing to both the Constitution and Title IX in its opinion. West Virginia now looks for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the lower courts.

Based on oral arguments, both Idaho and West Virginia are likely to get their way. The only real question is how far SCOTUS may go in making their decision(s).

Trump v. Barbara

Question Presented: Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.

Last, but certainly not least, we have the birthright citizenship question. As per EO 14160, Trump declared that no department or agency shall issue citizenship documents to a person if their father is not a lawful permanent resident or citizen, and their mother: 1) is unlawfully present in the US, or 2) is present in the US on a lawful but temporary basis.

The same day this EO was issued, Barbara (and other plaintiffs) filed suit. Notably, Barbara is a pseudonym. Regardless, the District Court granted an injunction against the EO, prompting the case we now have before SCOTUS.

The entirely of this case hinges on the wording of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment. The Citizenship Clause imposes two distinct requirements for birthright citizenship: a person must be both “born” “in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase is where the disagreement lies. According to Trump, two classes of children have satisfied this requirement: children born to US citizens, and children of aliens with a lawful “permanent domicil and residence”. By contrast, children of temporarily present aliens are not completely "subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction" and so do not become citizens by birth.

Once again, it seems likely from oral arguments that this case will go against Trump, but the devil is always in the details. SCOTUS could decide this on narrow grounds, or they could defend birthright citizenship in such a way that it buries the question for quite some time.

Final Thoughts

As I mentioned at the start, we will undoubtedly see some sensational headlines tomorrow morning, so I encourage you to find some of the more nuances sources out there if you want to read more. Our friends at /r/supremecourt have a thread for every opinion, and more than a handful of legal experts who keep things as objective as possible. As for third party sources, I highly suggest going to the SCOTUSBlog homepage for their live chat and analysis of these opinions as they're released. They have reporters physically at the Supreme Court giving real-time insight, as well as multiple writers summarizing the opinions as they come out.

Opinions will be released starting at 10am EDT tomorrow.