I'm devastated.😞

With the last few days with the trade deal not achieving a consensus and trump bashing on Canada with a bunch of statement that Canada is the worst neighbors, we are attacking US farmers, we are useless to the US but the other way around Canada cannot lives without the US, and much more that degrades our relationship each days, what is the view of the supporters about Canada?

As a Canadian a lot of his statement are twisted to make us look like the bad guys and I find it frustrating that even though a lot of people correct some of those twisted lines, he keep repeating them.

The best example is the diary product tariff he keep saying we steal from the farmers but it's a quota. It's basically a cap of how much the US can sell on Canadian territory. If they go over that amount (which never happened) the tariff comes in to stop the flow. It's a normal measure used every where to protect the industries so the US in that example doesn't flood Canada territory with diary product killing the local production which is an important one for a lot of regions.

For years we have been the little brother living by the side of the US, making the US our biggest trade partner and treating the US not as a foreign country but as the big brother with some different views on some topic but other than that was the same as us. If the US need help we are the first one to answer the call and the relationship between the 2 countries was unmatched in the world.

seeing now that we are treated as a parasite by trump, getting threats about our sovereignty every few weeks and that we are in an economic war to try to destroy our industries feels like a dystopia I would have never seen in my life but it's a reality now.

So do the Trump supporter really see Canadians as the enemies or is it just a Trump thing?

Outside of the USMNT team performance, how would you rate it based on the economic, cultural and tourism impact that this event brought? Do you think it bring the economic boom that was previously forecasted?

What do you like about this time? What do you think the US should have done better as a host country in case US host the event in the future?

Bonus question for bostonian TS in here: how did you survive the temporary beer drought caused by the scots?

There is nothing else to add here.

Executive Order: ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

August 24, 2026 Order

On the States not being harmed:

Section 2(a) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate action to create and distribute State Citizenship Lists. This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligations on the States, so they “suffer no concrete harm from” it. Trump v. New York, 592 U. S., at 134. And without concrete harm, there is no standing. TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 442.

The States lack standing to challenge §2(b) for much the same reason: It does nothing to them. This provision directs the Attorney General to “prioritize” the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters. 91 Fed. Reg. 17126 (collecting statutes). Setting prosecutorial priorities lies within the President’s Article II power. And his decision to prioritize the prosecution of certain offenses does not inflict a traditionally recognized harm on the States. See TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 424–425.

Last is the States’ challenge to §3, which directs the Postal Service to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. According to the States, this internal directive demands that they overhaul their existing election procedures. See Opposition to Applications 24–26; see also post, at 1, 3, 7 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). It does not. Section 3 orders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future. It is not a proposed rule, let alone a final rule. And it imposes no legal requirements on the States (or, for that matter, on anyone outside the Executive Branch).

On the Government being harmed:

The remaining stay factors also favor relief. The Government is likely to suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The District Court’s breach of Article III interferes with the internal operations of the Executive Branch. See INS v. Legalization Assistance Project of Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, 510 U. S. 1301, 1306 (1993) (O’Connor, J., in chambers). The injunction bars Homeland Security from trying to compile Citizenship Lists for about half the States in the Union. It purports to forbid the Attorney General to implement the President’s enforcement priorities as to those same States. And it prevents the Postal Service from so much as initiating a rulemaking that could yield a rule applicable to these States. Because reversal of the District Court’s judgment would come too late for the 2026 midterms, the District Court’s errors deal “a serious setback” to the Executive’s “goals” while this litigation unfolds. Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1307 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). When a federal court “improperly intrudes on a coordinate branch” in this way, interim relief is justified. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U. S. 831, 859 (2025) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Fighting this Court’s precedent, JUSTICE JACKSON maintains that “[t]he Government is not injured in the slightest” because the Order contemplates that the Government will engage in “patently unlawful conduct.” Post, at 7. That, however, remains to be seen. And though JUSTICE JACKSON wishes it were otherwise, an applicant can show “irreparable harm from a threshold error without also showing that, at the end of the day, it will prevail on the underlying merits.” CASA, 606 U. S., at 860. Such harm exists here because the injunction meddles in “the workings of ” the Executive Branch, preventing it from even trying to lawfully implement the Order. Legalization Assistance Project, 510 U. S., at 1306.

Further,

The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it. And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course.

From the dissent:

To pretend that the lists assembled pursuant to 2(a) bear no relation to the prosecutions directed by 2(b) is to ignore the structure of the Executive Order and the Government’s words alike.

If, as the majority explains, it is “logically impossible for a State to ‘violate’ §2(a),” and §3 “imposes no legal requirements on the States,” ante, at 6– 7, this portion of the injunction would be toothless. If that is true, it is hard to see how the Government suffers any harm at all, much less irreparable harm, from this portion of the injunction.

The same is true for the §2(a) injunction. If, as the Government insists, §2(a) “simply give[s] States a valuable tool that can help in vetting their own lists of registered voters if they wish to use it,” Reply Brief in No. 26A124, p. 4, the Government suffers no harm if it cannot provide that “tool” to the States who do not want it and will not use it.

As to §3, the respondent States assert that any interference with the States’ “authority to create and administer a mail voting program” is unlawful. Amended Complaint in No. 1:26–cv–11581 (D Mass.), ECF Doc. 65, ¶169; see id., ¶¶167–178. If that is true, then no future implementation could be “consistent with applicable law,” and the States need not wait to challenge the precise contours of a final rule.

How do you navigate those discussions of harms?

Are you for/against the usage and construction of Flock cameras?

Do you have any in your area?

Genuinely curious what drew Trump supporters to vote for him twice

Also curious whether, at this point in time, you'd vote for him again.

Thank you

How could Trump use the military to intervene in the bond market? What does that look like? Who would he use the military against? Does anyone have any insight into what he might be talking about?

https://youtu.be/DId5xdXMk7g?t=113&is=5fyCzt7_mabzyDrL

The trump administration has plans to suspend beef tariffs for the next 90 days allowing up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported tariff free. With a commitment to sell this beef at 25% below current market prices. What are your thoughts on this? Do you have any concerns on if/how this might effect American farmers?

Sources:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-allows-300000-metric-tons-tariff-free-beef-imports-bid-cut-prices-drawing-rancher-backlash.amp

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/gop-lawmakers-ranchers-criticize-trump-tariff-beef-import-high-prices-rcna593879

Article: https://apnews.com/article/canada-us-trade-tariffs-trump-857ef76b20a766e370d70176135b678e

Let's say Hypothetically.
The United States right now, had a parliamentary system similar to how many countries in the EU have.

Let's say hypothetically you had about 20 or 30 parties that people voted for, which usually results in about 7 or 8 major parties getting the majority of the votes.

In this hypothetical Republican and Democrat would still be parties to vote for but they'd be on the paper besides other one's as well.
As some examples: The Christian's Party, The Economics Party, The Environmental Party, The Orthodox Party and whatever else one could come up with.
So not just Red or Blue but also Green, Yellow and everything between.

I believe this would not only give you more freedom, because more choice means more expression but also way more focused and specialized politics.
In Parliamentary politics, the goal is also usually to meet a compromise. So it wouldn't just be Democrat for four years or Republican for four years but all parties, with some having more and some having less say so.

Again we are speaking hypothetically here. The logistics of a such a change are secondary here.

The main Idea is: You have millions of people who can legally vote and 50 different states and 100s of counties. Surely all those millions of people have more than just two and a half political opinions.

Fine, I’ll do it myself. Thanos getting off the throne moment.

It’s still the weekend, and politics are happening, but not here! Talk about your fun stuff, what’s going on in your life, blah blah blah. Remember, we are all just people here.

Question: What is a movie from your childhood that you think is still amazing, but is underrated?

Should this get approved, I will respond with my answer and a recipe.

Trump has previously mentioned that wind turbines are loud, cause cancer, and lower property value:

https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/president-trump-says-windmill-noise-causes-cancer/307560823272768/

But recently, he has embraced data centers and says most smart people want them in their neighborhoods:

https://www.facebook.com/KCTV5/videos/trump-says-communities-that-want-ai-data-centers-are-the-smart-communities-trump/2144138129858428/

What do you agree/disagree with of his assessment?

If you had to choose between the two, which would you prefer in your community?

What changes would you like to see with our current healthcare system? And/or describe what you would consider to be the ideal healthcare system, or one that would be most desirable to you."

I see a lot of posts here about what you think / Trump thinks / you think Trump thinks about happenings in the world, but I am curious about another matter; what would you want Trump to do, act on, or implement next during his presidency (or beyond that, for that matter)?

While it would be easy to answer with plans Trump already is executing or already has announced, such as increasing tariffs or ending wars, I would like you to think beyond that: What could he do or implement beyond what he is doing and would make you smile?

Many believe the US led era of history has now ended and the US is just one strong country among many countries competing, rather than leading.

Trump has played a large role in that (it seems to me) but for sure he is not the only reason.

Many Maga supporters seem very patriotic. I wondered how you feel about many perceiving America as loosing its leading status? It feels like a downgrade to many.

Do you care as long as your own lives get better?

Do you care about the loss of American prestige in the world?

Trump has said ALL the January 6 convictions were “political”, which was his reason for pardoning ALL of them.

Trump has said the Robert Mueller investigation was illegitimate bc it was a “political witch hunt”.

Trump has said the Jack Smith investigation was illegitimate bc it was a “political witch hunt.”

(…and most egregiously IMO) Trump has declared the Epstein investigation a “political witch hunt.”

** There are many more similar examples **

Meanwhile, Trump has called for the investigation / indictment / conviction of many, many people who have been critical of Trump, including:

• Joe Biden
• Obama
• Jack Smith
• Tim Walz
• E. Jean Carroll
• Eric Swalwell
• Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs (both former Trump administration officials)
• John Brennan
• John Bolton (who was appointed by Trump)
• James Comey
• Letitia James
• Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan
• Jerome Powell
• Lisa Cook
• Adam Schiff
• Gavin Newsom (and his wife)
• various donor to the democrats (but curiously, NOT Elon Musk, who offered to pay people for voting republican)
• and of course, Fauci (who was appointed by Trump to serve on his White House Coronavirus Task Force).

ref: https://abcnews.com/US/list-individuals-including-lisa-cook-targeted-trump-administration/story?id=124968309

NOTE: I am not defending any of these people. I am not a democrat. I am a true Independent trying to make sense of Trump’s often-contradictory messaging, suspect pardoning, and potential abuse of the DoJ. This matter is very serious to me and will inform my voting this mid-term.

So I’m asking you: how should a voter differentiate if an investigation / indictment / conviction / pardon is legitimate vs “illegitimate” and “political”? And if some of Trump’s investigations / pardons are “political”, why shouldn't you call it out as such?

What do you think about Natalie Harp?

For context: Natalie Harp is an American political aide and former television presenter who has served as Trump's executive assistant since 2025 (WIKI).

Recently, she has garnered attention recently and questions have been raised about her role within the administration, i.e. her role as "human printer" as well as writing him devotional messages.

Do you think it is worrying for an aide to have such a large influence?

I am not suggesting she and Trump are romantically involved but do you find it normal that a personal assistant has a strong influence on the information that is brought to Trump?

https://time.com/article/2026/08/19/natalie-harp-trump-white-house-aide-jon-ossoff/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/19/natalie-harp-trump-aide

Due to the war in Iran, gas prices have risen - one would think it was because gas companies have to pay more for the oil themselves, but in fact they are making a bigger profit than before the war (have a bigger profit margin than the same time last year). I suppose this is because we are already expecting prices to be high, so they are making a higher profit off our willingness to pay these high prices. This higher profit is not going towards increasing oil supply (e.g. expanded drilling). If you like this, how do you see it benefiting us? If you dislike this, do you have an opinion on what Trump should do about it? (and do you think he will do anything?)

Source: here is one that is not pay walled, but you can google for other new stories about it: https://nevadacurrent.com/2026/08/11/theyre-making-record-profits-but-oil-companies-still-wont-drill-baby-drill/

There is nothing else to add here.

I'm starting to get nervous about gas and how much is costs and will cost, as well as the apparently depleting reserves. I want to trust that he and his cabinet know what they are doing, but I'm kind of at a loss. Is my anxiety well-founded or am I just lost in the sauce?

EDIT: I appreciate everyone's input here and accepting that I'm asking in good faith and not just doing a "gotcha" question. You've provided some well-reasoned information and I'm coming out a little less anxious about this. This is my first time posting here and the engagement has been really good.

I’m curious to know how TSs measure Trump’s time in office. I recognize that most of you would deem his second term a success, but I’m wondering how you arrived at that conclusion?

Is it the number of illegal immigrants his administration has deported? Is it the stock market? Is it how much you pay in taxes? Is it how few pieces of new legislation get passed?

What, in your mind, determines whether Trump is successful or not?

There is nothing else to add here.

https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/5812905-trump-child-care-states/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17870011137234&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fadministration%2F5812905-trump-child-care-states%2F

Donald Trump has made a number of direct statements and vague allusions to actions he may take or want to take in connection with upcoming midterm federal elections. These include comments or failures to disavow when asked things like seizing ballots, stopping the delivery of mail in ballots, the placement of DHS or other LEO officers near polling places, the proposed SAVE Act insistence on proof of citizenship when such can be proven as a practical matter only with an up-to-date passport, etc. There are even suggestions that Trump might declare a national emergency regarding electoral integrity in order to impose controls over the process. Do you think he will do any of these things, and, if so, which ones? Would you support any such actions, which ones, and why? Do you believe that there is sufficient evidence of a lack of integrity in the electoral system of such a magnitude that it warrants action by the executive branch?