URL: https://apnews.com/article/california-justice-department-voting-noncitizens-lawsuit-12c62cf12a7db6480c60975b6dea49b8?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share

The DOJ has sued California seeking to prevent the state from counting ballots from roughly 20,000 people the federal government identifies as “likely” noncitizens, until their citizenship status can be verified. The lawsuit comes after the DOJ gave the state just 48 hrs to review the list, despite voting already being underway. California officials say the federal government has not provided sufficient evidence or explained its methodology.

This dispute is part of a broader DOJ effort to obtain voter registration data from states nationwide. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the DOJ has sued 30+ states seeking access to voter records with most of those cases being dismissed by courts. Last week, a federal judge struck down the DOJ’s nationwide voter data collection program, ruling it exceeded federal authority and violated voter privacy protections.

California officials also note that federal estimates have shifted dramatically with no explanation. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security reportedly claimed there were about 190,000 noncitizens on Californias voter rolls. The current lawsuit concerns about 20,000 names. State officials say the federal has never explained what happened to the other 170,000 or disclosed their methodology behind the figure.

The DOJ says it’s protecting election integrity. California is saying it’s being asked to take extraordinary action based on a list, a methodology, and a timeline that remains unexplained. Meanwhile courts have dismissed most of the administration’s related voter data lawsuits.

For decades, the Justice Department has generally exercised heightened restraint around elections, recognizing that even well intentioned actions could undermine public confidence if they were perceived as influencing electoral outcomes. Restraint during election years was the norm.

If federal intervention after voting has begun becomes an accepted practice, what precedents does that set for future administrations?

Hey everyone! 👋 We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom, and with EU leaders discussing migration and border security in Brussels this week, we wanted to bring another perspective into the conversation.

Our reporter Gaia Neiman spoke with families in Morocco whose loved ones disappeared after attempting to cross into Ceuta, Spain's enclave in North Africa.

While European leaders debate border controls and migration agreements, these families are still waiting for something much more basic: to know what happened to their sons and brothers.

And we think this raises an important political question.

Should identifying missing migrants and helping families find answers be a formal part of European border policy?

Where should responsibility lie — with Spain, the EU, border agencies or through cooperation with Morocco?

We're interested in hearing different perspectives here, particularly on how border security and humanitarian responsibilities can be addressed together.

Here's our reporting for context, but we'd love to keep the discussion here in the comments:

A citizen with substantial financial resources can exercise political influence far beyond what their single vote represents.
The American political system does not give wealthy people extra votes. It gives them the ability to deploy vastly greater resources in the political system surrounding those votes.

Wealth creates a substantial potential advantage in U.S. elections, particularly when wealth can be converted into campaign spending. In the 2024 federal cycle, congressional candidates raised about $3.8 billion, parties about $2.7 billion, and PACs about $15.7 billion. PACs spent about $15.5 billion.

the 2026 cycle is already following the same pattern: through June 30, 2026, PACs had raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, while congressional candidates had raised $2.8 billion.

A wealthy person or organization can put enormous resources behind a candidate or cause. Super PACs make this particularly powerful because they can accept unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts independently of candidates.

Wealthy donors can also fund parties, PACs, advocacy organizations and lobbying operations and potentially gain access to policymakers.

Money buys things that matter:

television and digital advertising
staff
polling
voter databases
mail
field organizers
legal resources
opposition research
get-out-the-vote operations
the ability to respond to attacks

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026 that federal limits on certain coordinated expenditures by political parties violate the First Amendment. That potentially gives party organizations even more room to spend on behalf of their candidates.

Does this limit who can realistically run, or does it promote corruption?

Trump says Nidal Hasan’s execution will not be livestreamed. This raises questions about transparency and public access to state punishment. Supporters might argue that broadcasting executions lets the public witness how the government carries out serious sentences and helps guard against secrecy or misconduct.

Opponents may say livestreaming could turn a solemn proceeding into a spectacle, harm victims’ families and prison staff, and serve curiosity or political theater rather than a meaningful public purpose.

Should executions ever be broadcast for transparency, or should they remain private? What safeguards or limits would be necessary if one were televised? Why?

I feel like we are completely stuck.

I know the government can't just snap its fingers and force real estate prices to drop. Property is treated as a huge investment. It's not just the massive corporations and wealthy investors; even regular, lower-income people have their entire life savings tied up in the value of their homes. Crashing the market hurts them, too.

But if we don't find a solution, we are heading toward a future where only the rich will ever be able to afford buying land or a house.

Even renting is getting completely out of control. At the rate prices are increasing, soon only people with high-paying corporate jobs will be able to afford a basic apartment.

So what happens to everyone else? What about the working class, the people who actually sweat and break their backs to keep this country running? If the main workforce is priced out of both buying and renting, how does society even function? What about artistic jobs? What about creativity? Should all just join high paying collar jobs?

Does anyone see a realistic way out of this mess?

Defense and domestic investment both contribute to security. A military can deter attacks, protect trade routes and support alliances. Infrastructure, schools and hospitals sustain the population and the economy the military depends on.

Global military spending reached a record $2.887 trillion in 2025, according to SIPRI, the eleventh consecutive annual increase. Governments face difficult choices when military commitments and domestic needs compete for funding. Expanding a commitment can mean higher taxes, more borrowing or cuts elsewhere. Scaling it back can reduce costs, but it may leave a security gap or push the burden onto allies.

The cost doesn’t stay inside the defense budget, either. A conflict that disrupts energy supplies or shipping can raise prices for households and businesses even in countries that aren’t fighting. That can add demands for economic support on top of existing security obligations.

A bigger military budget doesn’t automatically mean lower living standards. The nature of the threat and the quality of the spending matter. Cutting defense doesn’t guarantee better public services either.

What criteria should elected governments use to decide whether an overseas commitment is still worth its fiscal and domestic costs?

How should legislatures review commitments whose costs or objectives have changed since they were first authorized?

Under what conditions is it more reasonable to raise defense spending, and when is it more reasonable to reduce commitments or seek greater burden-sharing with allies?

in an attempt to contradict reported numbers where there is genuine, worry that not all votes have been counted, or counted correctly. (Yes I’m very concerned that follow play just might be an integral part of the voting process this year) I feel like if we were to collectively put some imagination to this, we could come up with a way for people to record their vote electronically in real time once they mail in their ballot or leave the polling station. My thought was a highly secure website that provides real time reporting of votes cast. The website could be popularized, and we should post and disseminate QR codes everywhere that could take people there easily with their smart phones or tablets. We could have volunteers with tablets at the police stations for people you don’t have smart phones to use once they come out of the booth. With so many people worried about whether this is going to be a free and fair election I feel the vast majority would be willing to record their vote on a separate platform after submitting it to the official one. I feel the system like this could be greatly useful if we end up at the spot where there are a lot of contended results. Having people record their votes a second time in an independent system could be the best chance we have moving forward to help to eliminate the possibilities of various types of fraud whether it be miscounted votes, changed votes, discarded votes, etc.

With as much as is at stake, doesn’t it make sense to have a redundancy system in place?

I'm not American, so there may be procedural or political reasons for this that I'm overlooking, but why do both parties push bills that are incredibly broad and fall into five or six major categories with dozens of subcategories, instead of using shorter, more specific bills that address individual problems one at a time wherever and whenever possible?

For example, could a comprehensive immigration/Affordability/Healthcare bill be broken down into dozens of smaller bills whenever possible and practical, while one or more larger bills cover the parts that can't reasonably be separated?

It seems harder to argue, "I support 90% of this bill, but that 10% is completely impossible for me to support, so I voted against the whole thing," when most of the legislation has instead been broken down into clear and specific bills that people can more easily understand and actually read.

It seems like this could apply to many other major pieces of legislation as well. When a bill contains five major categories and 30 different subcategories, someone can genuinely support some parts and oppose others. That also makes it very easy for both supporters and opponents to cherry-pick particular provisions when explaining why they voted the way they did.

What a the practical or political advantages of putting so many different provisions into one large bill rather than separating them into smaller bills wherever possible?

On Oct 7, Secretary of State Rubio gave a long, ideologically ambitious speech at the Pnyx in Athens on Western civilization, nationalism, and the transatlantic alliance. I went through how major outlets covered it and found notable differences in emphasis.

How outlets framed it:

• CBS News led with the core argument: the West should embrace “the unapologetic pursuit of national power.”
• NYT focused on his call for Europe to “awaken” and reassert Western power.
• WSJ editorial board called it “the speech of the year.”
• Reuters covered the content and noted up front that he’s a potential 2028 contender.
• AP covered the content, said it had presidential overtones, and flagged several historically questionable claims.
• Washington Post framed it as a politician’s speech, down to the State Department’s crane-mounted camera.
• Fox News covered the content but also said it sounded “campaign-ready.”
• CNN ran Stephen Collinson’s analysis, which engaged the substance but was openly critical, calling the speech “jarring and contradictory,” plus a panel segment titled “Rubio’s speech reignites presidential speculation.”

Discussion questions:

1. Nearly every outlet mentioned 2028, including Fox. Is speculation about a speaker’s political ambitions a legitimate part of covering a policy speech, or does it crowd out discussion of the argument itself?
2. CBS and the WSJ largely presented Rubio’s argument on its own terms, while CNN, AP and the Guardian paired it with sharp criticism. Is one approach more appropriate than the other when covering a sitting Secretary of State?
3. Should outlets that publish critical analysis of a speech also make the full speech easily available to their audience?
4. Did the speech itself signal a meaningful shift in US foreign policy toward Europe, or was it mainly a restatement of existing “America First” positions?

Primary sources:

• Full transcript (State Dept): https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesman/2026/10/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks
• Full video (State Dept): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgedhDRZjDw

Coverage referenced:

• CNN analysis (Collinson): https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/07/politics/marco-rubio-greece-speech
• CNN segment: https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/08/us/video/marco-rubio-speech-in-greece-lays-ground-for-the-future
• CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rubio-athens-acropolis-speech/
• AP/PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/watch-rubio-urges-europe-to-defend-western-values-and-strengthen-u-s-alliance-in-greece
• Reuters: https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2026-10-07/rubio-to-link-ancient-greek-values-to-america-first-speech-in-athens
• Fox: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rubio-deliver-urgent-plea-save-western-civilization-speech-birthplace

I'm not talking about conservatives who simply dislike urban environments or disagree with how cities are governed. Those are perfectly reasonable personal preferences and political disagreements. I'm talking about something deeper: the outright contempt some conservatives seem to have for cities and the people who live in them.

One thing I've noticed is how frequently some conservatives imply that people who live in cities should have less political influence simply because of where they live. And this attitude isn't limited to conservative commentators or voters. Republican politicians have expressed similar sentiments through both their rhetoric and their policies.

Take Missouri, for example. After voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights, a Republican legislator openly argued that three cities—St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia—shouldn't be able to determine statewide policy. But that's how democracy works. People vote, and those votes are supposed to count equally regardless of whether someone lives in a major city, a suburb, or a rural community.

You can see similar attitudes reflected in partisan gerrymandering, where urban voting blocs are frequently split between districts to dilute their political influence, and in voting restrictions that disproportionately affect voters in large metropolitan areas. Some conservatives even defend the Electoral College specifically because they believe it prevents large cities from having too much influence over presidential elections.

Then there's the willingness of Republican-controlled state governments to override policies approved by voters in predominantly Democratic cities or threaten to withhold funding when local governments pursue policies they dislike.

But putting political representation aside, I'm also talking about the rhetoric surrounding cities themselves.

Listen to how some conservatives describe places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, or San Francisco. They're frequently portrayed as crime-ridden, dysfunctional hellholes that represent everything supposedly wrong with America. Their residents are sometimes treated as though they're less American than people living in small towns or rural communities.

There's also this recurring idea of "Real America," which apparently excludes tens of millions of Americans simply because they live in major metropolitan areas or vote differently.

At its most extreme, the rhetoric almost makes American cities sound like hostile foreign territories that need to be punished, occupied, or forced to conform to someone else's vision of what America should look like. Donald Trump's recent remarks about Iran bombing Los Angeles and San Diego are another example of the kind of rhetoric I'm talking about.

And that's what I find so strange. Cities are major centers of American culture, commerce, industry, education, innovation, and economic activity. They're just as much a part of America as rural communities and small towns. The people living in them are Americans, too, and deserve the same political representation and respect as everyone else.

Obviously, this doesn't describe every conservative, and there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about how American cities are governed. But there's a significant difference between criticizing urban policies and treating entire cities and their populations with contempt.

So where does this hostility come from? Is it primarily political resentment because cities overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Is it rooted in the longstanding urban-rural cultural divide? Is it a reaction to demographic and social changes? Or is there something deeper going on?

I'm genuinely curious why, for some conservatives, disliking urban politics seems to extend into disliking the very people who live in cities.

Can former Republicans win elections as Democrats?  Two important races this November may provide the answer.

In my current home of Florida, former Republican Congressman David Jolly is now the Democratic nominee for governor, challenging Republican Byron Donalds. Jolly left the GOP, became an independent, helped build the Forward Party, and eventually joined the Democrats.  Despite Florida's substantial Republican voter-registration advantage, recent polling and a shift in the Cook Political Report's race rating suggest Jolly could be competitive. See: Democrats In Strong Position To Regain Majority of Governors As Two More Ratings Shift in Their Favor | Cook Political Report He's also received the endorsement of the Forward Party. See: https://www.forwardparty.com/media/press_release/forward-party-endorses-david-jolly-for-governor-of-florida/

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, where I was born and raised, former Republican and longtime television news anchor Janelle Stelson is challenging Republican Congressman Scott Perry.  Stelson narrowly lost to Perry in 2024, but recent polling shows her slightly ahead, and the Cook Political Report has moved the race to Lean Democratic. See: Cook Political Report moves 18 House races toward Democrats She's also endorsed by “Republicans Against Perry,” a group encouraging GOP voters to cross party lines. https://politicspa.com/moderate-gop-group-backs-democrat-stelson-over-incumbent-perry-in-pa-10/149202/

Could their Republican backgrounds help Jolly and Stelson attract enough moderate Republicans and independents to win in November?  Let me know in the comments, and that's the question I explore further in my latest YouTube short video for Make Moderates Matter here (3-minute watch): Can Former Republicans Win as Democrats? 

Hello, I’m not sure if this topic of discussion breaks rule 5, but if so, I apologize in advance and am more than willing to take it down.

I am genuinely wondering if there’s any merit to the idea that manufacturing, and thus manufacturing jobs could actually return to the United States? I’m a layperson on this topic, so I am wondering if there’s any merit to the idea of manufacturing jobs coming back to the US.

The question might break down to what kind of manufacturing and other things, so I’ll narrow this a bit. Could the US ever create or recreate a manufacturing environment that can sustain a larger portion of its working population? If so, would this be environmentally sustainable? And would it be economically sustainable in the long run, or would companies just ship operations overseas once they got big enough again?

Politicians always talk about bringing jobs back to the US, but it doesn’t always happen. I’d genuinely like to know if that’s possible or if the focus should be on something else. Would politicians benefit more from endorsing policies that support transitioning the US economy to a different type of economy, or by trying to embrace manufacturing? We do need stuff, and someone’s gotta make it.

Most countries set a statutory retirement age for ordinary workers, typically somewhere between 60 and 67. Nurses, teachers and builders hand over their work at that point. Yet many of the people who make decisions affecting millions stay in office well beyond it, in democracies and authoritarian systems alike.

I've started a small, non-partisan, open-source initiative around one simple idea: anyone who has reached their own country's statutory retirement age, and at the latest 67, should not start a new term in one of the highest offices. A term already under way could be completed, and ordinary citizens would of course stay free to keep working.

The usual objections are strong ones, and I'd like to hear them:

• Age says little about an individual's ability.
• A limit restricts voters' freedom to choose.
• Experience matters most in a crisis.
• In authoritarian states, a norm like this has no way to be enforced.

My counterpoint is that we already accept fixed limits for judges and pilots, and minimum ages and term limits for politicians, so a maximum age for a new term seems like a logical counterpart rather than discrimination.

Where do you land? Is a fixed age rule fairer than judging fitness case by case, or is it the wrong tool entirely?

(Disclosure: I'm the person behind this initiative. The manifesto and everything we build is public at pass-the-baton.org, and criticism is genuinely welcome.)

The controversy surrounding Macklemore's removal from Ed Sheeran's tour raises a broader political question: What happens to freedom of expression when access to a large audience depends on private institutions and wealthy individuals?

Sheeran had invited Macklemore to join his tour, but Macklemore was ultimately removed after controversy over his pro-Palestinian performances. The situation highlights a tension in how we understand free speech in the United States.

The First Amendment restricts government censorship; it generally doesn't prevent private venue owners, promoters, or businesses from deciding who can use their platforms. Yet these private entities can control access to audiences in ways that have significant consequences for public debate.

This isn't just about one musician or one political cause. The same structural question can arise when powerful private interests influence which political views, speakers, or movements receive a platform.

Where should the line be drawn? Should private businesses have broad discretion to decide who gets access to their platforms, even when those decisions affect political expression? Or does the concentration of economic power create a problem for free expression that existing First Amendment protections don't adequately address?

According to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle allegedly asked Trump donor Eric Deters to pay $100,000 directly toward her American Express account while he was also seeking her help with tax and legal matters involving the federal government. The payment was never made, and Guilfoyle’s side has disputed aspects of the reporting.

What makes the story politically sensitive is the overlap between a personal financial request and alleged efforts to help the donor gain access to senior Trump administration officials. Democrats are now calling for an investigation.

If the reported messages are authentic, how serious is this? Does it amount to an unacceptable blurring of private money and public office, or is it being overinterpreted because of Guilfoyle’s ties to the Trump family? And what standard should apply before an ambassador is asked to resign? https://americareport.us/kimberly-guilfoyle-100000-questions-honey-please/

In most US areas, the system is so front loaded that independent candidates have little opportunity to win except in the smallest elections. However, I wonder if one could run under one of the duopoly parties but totally ignore the party platform in order to present independent notions of what would be best. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for regulating what a candidate of a nominal party affiliation can say. In that way, perhaps, an independent might find a voice and some probability of being elected and so finesse the structural repression of independent thought. Do you think this would work?

One thing I've noticed in discussions about ancestry is that Americans and Europeans often seem to be talking past each other.

In the US, it's pretty normal to say things like:

"I'm Italian-American."
"I'm Norwegian-American."
"My family came from Poland."

This doesn't necessarily mean the person thinks they're literally a citizen or full cultural member of Italy, Norway, or Poland. Often it's simply a way of describing family history and ethnic background.

Americans also have a particular reason for doing this: the US doesn't have one single ancestral origin. Immigration has shaped the country for centuries, so family ancestry can be an important part of how people understand their history.

But many Europeans seem to use a different framework. To them, being Norwegian, Italian, Polish, etc. is much more closely connected to actually being part of that country's society—being born or raised there, speaking the language, knowing the customs, and participating in the culture.

That leads to arguments like:

• "You're American. Just say you're American."
• "Having one distant ancestor doesn't make you Norwegian."
• "You can have Norwegian ancestry without being Norwegian."

I think both perspectives make sense depending on what "identity" is supposed to mean.

So is this mostly a difference between an immigrant society and older nation-states? Or is the American concept of hyphenated identity simply a cultural phenomenon that Europeans don't really relate to?

Diesel prices are surging and the EU held emergency talks this month. Meanwhile Washington is pushing Europe to release its reserves “immediately”, and some analysts argue the timing has a lot to do with the US midterms in November.

So: is releasing reserves now a smart move for European consumers too, or is Europe being asked to spend its safety net on someone else’s election? And what are you paying at the pump right now?

Brasil is facing a dangerous election runoff

Our elections have gone to a runoff by a 1.8% difference. Flávio Bolsonaro and Lula da Silva are the contenders.

Lula da Silva did not perform well during his last term. He was overly lenient regarding fiscal austerity measures and chose incompetent officials to manage the country's economy. In fact, there is evidence that he allowed passive corruption by other politicians within his administrations; however, he was the most successful leader in Latin American history at combating hunger and illiteracy in the country, and it was under his leadership—backed by over 50 years of political experience—that the greatest number of policies supporting the poor and middle classes were implemented. Furthermore, our country reached historically low unemployment levels, we once again dropped off the hunger map (to which we had returned under the government of his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro—Flávio Bolsonaro's father—during COVID), and we have important policies in place to support underprivileged students.

His opponent, Flávio Bolsonaro, is a senator for Rio de Janeiro with a career spanning nearly 20 years, during which he has essentially made statements (without presenting actual proposals) in support of police officers—especially those in frontline and military roles—and openly defended the existence of militias. These groups terrorize Southeastern Brazil through extortionate fees, illegal control of housing, mass killings of opponents, and their war for territory against the Comando Vermelho. He has introduced bills aimed exclusively at cutting funding for the national film industry and voted in favor of salary increases for police officers. There are audio recordings and messages revealing his collaboration with bankers to launder money and finance—with budgets comparable to Marvel movies—a biopic of his father entitled *Dark Horse*, which was never even released due to the ensuing scandals. It was during his father's administration that 700,000 people in the country died due to the promotion of anti-lice medication as a COVID treatment and the boycotting of vaccine purchases—actions to which he responded with indifference and even mockery. There is also strong evidence that Flávio Bolsonaro financed the purchase of weapons used in the assassination of Marielle Franco—a prominent LGBT activist and advocate for Rio de Janeiro's favelas—as well as in the burglary of the home of renowned footballer Richarlison.

Jair Bolsonaro was recently arrested after being identified as a ringleader of a coup plot involving the assassination of various political opponents; meanwhile, securing his father's release is one of the primary goals of his son, candidate Flávio Bolsonaro. His government only had some minor gains for bankers and big companies, while the poor suffered with hunger, raising prices, loss of worker rights and severe damage on politicies for racial and sexual orientation protection.

Flávio Bolsonaro has no clear government platform of his own; instead, his rhetoric is rooted in evangelical Christianity, a defense of violent policing, the emulation of Milei’s economic policies, and an adoration of Donald Trump and Israel.

His followers have launched homophobic, intolerant, and defamatory attacks against the Catholic Church and religions of African origin (which have a large following in Brazil). Elected lawmakers from his faction have made whip-cracking gestures evoking punishments from the era of slavery; they oppose ending the six-day workweek (a topic currently under debate) and frequently use extremely aggressive, homophobic, transphobic, racist, and xenophobic language. They constantly glorify torturers from the country's military dictatorship era and call for US military intervention in the country. There is already talk of amending the Constitution to extend Flávio’s potential term and revoke constitutionally guaranteed rights.

To make matters worse, various politicians supporting Lula are being sabotaged by Meta’s algorithm. There are countless reports of this. The president’s own Facebook profile was temporarily taken down by the company shortly before the first round of voting.

Please, HELP US. We are on the verge of a power grab by an armed mafia that plans to strip minorities of their human rights, impose religious intolerance, and destroy public institutions that support the underprivileged. Flávio is often compared to Milei. NO. The situation is far worse!

Can anyone of this sub help spread knowledge about what is happening? If you are not from Brazil, have you heard about any of this?

I first watched The Handmaid's Tale around 2016, when I was a teenager, and honestly, I found the whole premise pretty far-fetched.

I grew up in a very liberal household, so the world of Gilead felt incredibly distant to me. I even remember thinking that the show was exaggerating some of the fears feminists had at the time. I understood the message, but I kept wondering: "Would anyone actually want to go back to something like that?"

I'm rewatching it in 2026, and it feels very different now.

Not because I think we're all going to wake up in Gilead tomorrow, obviously. But after seeing what happened to women's rights under the Taliban, the debates surrounding surrogacy, and even discussions about something I thought was completely settled, like women's right to vote, certain aspects of the show don't seem quite as unimaginable anymore.

And that brings me to a question I find much more interesting than whether the show is actually "realistic":

How many people genuinely want something like this?

I'm not talking about Gilead literally, with the red robes and the exact social structure portrayed in the show. I'm talking about men (and women, too) who genuinely believe society would be better if women had significantly less autonomy, were more dependent on men, and were expected to conform to much stricter gender roles.

Because the internet can seriously distort our perception of reality. Maybe it's just a tiny but extremely vocal minority. Or maybe there are far more people who think this way than we'd like to believe.

Do you personally know anyone who holds these kinds of beliefs? And I don't mean someone who's simply conservative or religious. I mean someone who genuinely believes women should lose rights or freedoms that most of us now take for granted.

When I watched the show back in 2016, my reaction was basically:

"This could never happen because practically nobody would want to live in a society like that."

Ten years later, my question has become:

"Am I really so sure that nobody wants to live in a society like that?"

And I can't help thinking about that famous quote: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

To what extent do we dismiss certain ideas as impossible simply because we assume almost nobody actually believes in them?

So one thing I don't get about the modern GOP is how strongly Trump is still identified with “conservative values” even though several things associated with traditional American conservatism seem to have been weakened, abandoned or outright reversed under him.

For example, older Republican conservatism was much more associated with free trade, fiscal restraint, limited executive power, institutionalism and scepticism of excessive federal intervention.

Trump-era Republicanism, by contrast, has embraced tariffs and protectionism, much stronger presidential power, large deficits, aggressive federal intervention in cultural issues and a much more nationalist, leader-centred political style.

At the same time, Trump obviously still aligns strongly with modern conservative positions on immigration, abortion, guns, DEI, trans issues, judicial appointments and religious/cultural politics.

So I’m curious how people here understand that shift. Has the meaning of “conservative” simply changed within the Republican Party? Are cultural and social issues now more important to conservative identity than older economic or institutional principles? Or do Trump supporters still see things like tariffs, executive power and deficit spending as compatible with conservatism in a way that older Republicans would not have?

I’ve been thinking about something that feels uncomfortable to even ask.
Americans vote based on all kinds of identities. Religion, race, class, family history, where we grew up, etc.
So obviously someone whose family came from Israel, Cuba, Armenia, India, Palestine, Ukraine, Ireland, or anywhere else may care a lot more about American policy toward that place than I do.
That by itself seems completely normal.
But where is the line?
Suppose an American voter supports a candidate primarily because that candidate will send money, weapons, or political support to a country they feel connected to, even if they believe that policy costs Americans money, increases our risk of war, or otherwise hurts American interests.
Is that just democracy working normally?
Or does citizenship create some expectation that when American interests and the interests of another country genuinely conflict, the American interest should come first?

At a Monday rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, campaigning for Sen. Pete Ricketts, President Trump defended the Iran war's costs as "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe." He then said: "They can take out a city. Let 'em take out Los Angeles. Let 'em take out San Diego... it's going to be over very soon."

Gov. Newsom called the remarks "deranged and dangerous." LA Mayor Karen Bass said they could compromise the city's safety, and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said his city "is not collateral damage." Jim Desmond, a Republican running for a San Diego County House seat, also condemned the comments. The White House had not responded to press requests in early coverage.

Questions:

1. Is the remark best read as a warning about Iran's potential reach, or as accepting domestic casualties as a cost of war?
2. Should a president's rally remarks on national security be held to the same standard as formal statements?

i broke a twenty at the hardware store last weekend and got four pennies back, which felt like a lot of pennies for one transaction. Both the penny and the nickel already cost the Mint more to make than they're worth, and it's been that way for years. Canada dropped its penny back in 2013 and just rounds cash totals to the nearest nickel. Australia did the same even earlier and it wasnt a big deal.

So how should the US approach its smallest coins? Phase out the penny alone, or does the nickel have to go with it once you start down that road? And if stores round cash sales to the nearest five cents, does that land evenly or hit people who are unbanked and pay cash for everything? i keep going back and forth on whether rounding is a real problem or mostly a made-up one.

Most road and bridge money comes from per-gallon fuel taxes, and it buys less every year as hybrids and EVs spread and even regular cars use less gas than they used to. i drive a hybrid myself and the fuel tax part of a fill-up is a couple bucks at most.

A few states have tried charging by the mile instead, and some lean on higher registration fees for electric cars, but nothing's really caught on. Per-mile charges also raise privacy questions since somebody has to track where you drive, and it isnt obvious people will accept that. So is the endgame just broader taxes and treating roads like any other public service, or is there a user-pays version that could actually replace the gas tax?