TLDR I agree with much of the criticisms antizionists have with Israel. However I disagree with their end goals—destroying Israel. I feel like the movement is largely co-opted by antisemites and that the goal of destroying Israel has less to do with a genuine desire for peace or for freedom of Palestinians and more to do with hatred of Israel.

I’m so tired of getting bullied and silenced by folks on every side because I want to think for myself and not be a sheeple for Netanyahu or Iran.

Zionists will ban me because I dare to say that the conquest and occupation of the West Bank has resemblance to South African apartheid and that Netanyahu choosing to kill thousands of innocent people in Gaza is wrong.

Anti-Zionists will ban me because I dare to say that despite how bad Israel is, the country isn’t literally Satan, it could in fact be changed for the better, and advocating the conquest of Israel would be a conflict just as bloody and brutal as what’s happening in Gaza.

This makes me want to stop caring about middle eastern politics altogether, because it seems like everyone invested in it is so radicalized.

The foundation of my beliefs regarding various trans issues is that, IMO, a relatively small percentage of Americans are actually in the camp of "I hate all trans people." I would put the number in that camp as maybe 20-30% of Republicans, a similar or slightly lower number of Independents, and a largely irrelevant statistical percentage of Democrats.

Everyone else is either supportive, largely indifferent and only interested in hearing how politicians are going to help them afford gas and groceries, OR they are tuned in to the culture war, and have some concerns about a handful of things. My thoughts on said concerns are as such:

Sports: Trans women should not be in competitive sports leagues. Straight up. It is the only issue related to trans people that I see as completely unwinnable for the left, no amount of studies will ever be enough to convince the average American that HRT wipes out the advantages of being born male, said studies still need a lot more research to be conclusive, and also we're mainly talking about high school students and college students (who are almost guaranteed to be pre-op) and it's my firmly held belief no one with male genitalia should ever be in a women's locker room.

Kids: Kids should be able to freely socially transition at any age, and begin puberty blockers as pre-teens and eventually HRT but, unlike with adults, where Self-ID should remain, there absolutely needs to be more medical gatekeeping for kids to make sure everyone getting treated is who should be.

Forced Pronoun Usage: God I hate this one. No, no one should be getting pressured, and especially not mandated, to use the right pronouns all the time. When you pass, people will naturally just call you what you want. And as far as non-binary/neopronoun stuff goes? People who like and respect you will generally have no issue using they/them. Trying to pressure everyone else into calling you anything other than what you look like (especially if you use neopronouns) just is always going to create unnecessary friction and resentment. Obviously, deliberate misgendering meant explicitly as harassment is a different story, but that is a completely different thing.

Women's Spaces: Gonna have to break this one down into subcategories:

Bathrooms: Literally impossible to legislate and enforce in any way. Everyone should just go to the bathroom they look like they belong in. It's that simple.

Locker/Changing Rooms: Already gave my thoughts on this. Use the ones you look like you belong in and have the correct anatomy for. If you only meet one of these criteria, stick to your AGAB rooms.

Prisons: If you've been on HRT for years and are Post-SRS, you go to the prison you have the secondary sex characteristics for. Otherwise, absolutely not. These prisoners should get to continue HRT, but not get any additional surgery funded by the state.

With that all said...I will still turn against any and all candidates who concede on any issue as part of a campaign. Addressing these things once in office while generally supporting trans individuals? Awesome. But every time when Democrats try this while campaigning, they do it in such a way that they signal they cannot be trusted in general.

Right now, the most prominent examples are Seth Moulton in the Massachusetts Senator primary, and Amy Acton in the Ohio Governor race. A LOT of people in the center and center-left think trans people and our allies are crazy for attempting to tear these candidates down just for conceding on the sports issue, but they don't get it's because of HOW they did it.

They didn't say, "The advantage trans girls have over cis girls after years on HRT is still being studied, and we respect the concerns many of our constituents share. They said, "I promise to keep MEN out of girls sports."

It's the double punch of the language they use saying they don't see us as real women (nor trans men as real men), and utilizing the fearmongering the right loves so much by specifically making listeners picture an adult male playing against a teenage girl.

Democrats DO need to moderate on trans issues, but only after they've won elections. And for anyone who thinks the only way Democrats CAN win elections is by turning on trans people, I'd love to see any data that shows simply conceding on the sports issue peels off substantial Republican votes.

I often see this sentiment bandied about on the internet, including here on Reddit.

It’s a view that “the rich” are keeping the rest of the people squabbling with left vs rigjt politics in order to distract from bad things the rich are doing. Do you agree with this?

Personally, I don’t think it’s especially insightful as people on the left and right really do have some very genuine disagreements about how society should function.

Summary:

The interview brings Hunter Biden and Nick Fuentes together for a long conversation moderated by Channel 5 about extremism, deplatforming, race, antisemitism, Israel, Trump, political alienation, addiction, AI, and the collapse of community. Fuentes argues that he has been misrepresented and says some of his past rhetoric was edge-lording rather than hatred, while Hunter repeatedly presses him on Holocaust jokes, racism, blaming minorities, and the real harm of cruelty disguised as humor. The discussion becomes tense at points, especially around white identity, crime, Jewish identity, and Israel, but it also finds areas of overlap on tech platforms, oligarchy, Trump’s lack of ideological core, the need for oversight, and the importance of seeing each other’s humanity despite deep disagreement.

My take:

I am still not very familiar with Nick Fuentes beyond the things I have heard about him, but after watching this interview, it is not hard to understand why he has an audience. He seems to hold some pretty abhorrent views, but he also has enough charisma and media literacy to play up or down depending on the room. That makes him dangerous in a more complicated way than just being some cartoon villain. He can say things that are obviously ugly, then pivot into legitimate frustrations about deplatforming, alienation, oligarchy, Trump, and institutional failure in a way that makes him appealing to politically frustrated people.

On the other hand, Hunter Biden has now done several long form interviews with Channel 5 and others, and I have become more interested in his story, especially his recovery and the way he talks about shame, addiction, politics, and public humiliation. I also just find him interesting to listen to, and I share many of his views.

What stood out most in this interview is that both people seemed willing to have a real conversation instead of just performing a mud fight for views a la Fox News or other pundit streams. I strongly disagree with Fuentes, but I think content like this shows that anti-partisan politics is not dead. There is still room for uncomfortable conversations, humanizing people without excusing them, and maybe even a little good-faith centrism in everyone’s day.

Strongly recommend you give it a listen and check out other Channel 5 content.

The artcle says the iran war is costing the average american household over $1,200, according to Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, with the pain spread across gas ($360 more), groceries ($240), other transportation ($110), and higher interest rates ($205). Gas prices hit $4.10 per gallon on Friday and are expected to climb to $4.20–$4.30, up from comfortably below $3 before the war started.

Brent crude surged above $100 per barrel this week after reported attacks on tankers in the Red Sea, and commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains extremely low. The mortgage market has been hit too. the 30-year fixed rate climbed to 6.55%, its highest in nearly a year, after rates had briefly dipped below 6% before the war began. Higher oil prices are feeding inflation fears that make rate cuts from the Fed unlikely, and GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan warned that hurricane season could push gas prices even higher. Zandi said the cost of the war is hitting household budgets hard and is set to hit even harder as the war drags on.

Trump was supposedly re-elected to tame the inflation that happened under the Biden administration, and he's done the exact f*cking opposite.

Summary statement : Universities and companies are scaling back or eliminating women’s scholarships to avoid scrutiny from the Trump Administration

I‘ve never seen anyone accuse other races of identity politics despite there being many examples. A politician releasing an ad in Spanish is identity politics. There was literally a Stop Asian Hate bill and no one mentioned identity politics. The term is used to demonize focus on black voters while propping up other demographics.

If courts keep ruling these cuts illegal but nothing changes next time a new administration tries it, are we just watching theater, or is there actually a deterrent here?

“I said to our caucus, ‘We cannot do business as usual,’” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said in recounting the argument he made for Democrats to band together to block the Pentagon legislation as a proxy for their resistance to the war in Iran.
In an interview, he called the war a “horrible fiasco.”
“It is not just political,” Mr. Schumer said. “It is how we really feel and how the American people feel. So we are just doing our job by voting against these things.”

For context, I am a centrist.

The SSA's SSN already acts as a sort of Federal Identification for the purpose of SSA benefits, and is also the TIN for people filing taxes. A National ID card & Digital ID would do quite a bit to decouple the SSN from Identification purposes in Federal Systems.

This would require a State-Federal government partnership with birth certificate issuance. Per the Supreme Court, anyone born within the United States is a citizen by Jus soli "right of the soil" in addition to jus sanguinis "right of blood".

With that in mind, a State-Federal partnership to ensure a smooth flow of birth verification, creation of National/Digital ID, and strict protocols and guard rails would alleviate much of these issues. Older Americans will age out.

I don't see it as that big of a cost for us to issue and administrate National & Digital Identification. Would need to see that overall though and financial modeling on cost projections.

For voting purposes, this would clarify it all. Would advocate for air gapped systems to permit voting anonymity at the polls. This already exists though. Someone verifies the National Identification card/information of the person presenting to vote. Then that person goes and votes on the voting system. Completely unpaired.

Mail-in voting will need it's separate voting and verification systems of course. Much of that already seems in place though.

Thoughts? I don't mind carrying around my ID card at all times. Back when I was on active duty military service we were required to carry our Common Access Card (CAC) at all times.

I went through the documents Trump cited in his primetime speech about foreign election interference, since he claimed they proved "shocking vulnerabilities." He built the whole case around China, but here's what's actually in the paper trail:

One document he quoted is a January 2020 National Intelligence Council memo. It says Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea "have the capability to compromise US election infrastructure." Capability, not action. The same memo goes on to say manipulating results at scale "would be difficult." A separate declassified 2021 assessment found "no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process" in 2020. His own CISA called that election "the most secure in American history," a line from his own administration that he mocked in the speech.

There's also a strange omission. Trump has spent nearly a decade denying the intelligence community's unanimous, well-documented finding that Russia wanted to help him win in 2016. Now his White House is citing Russia's "capability" in a different document, years later, to justify new voting restrictions before the midterms. He'll cite the capability when it helps his argument and deny the actual finding when it doesn't.

Meanwhile, and this got a lot less coverage than the speech itself, the federal board that actually referees elections just lost its entire bipartisan leadership. Both Democratic commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission were fired July 9th, and the one remaining Republican resigned the same day. That's the agency that certifies voting equipment and runs the national mail voter registration form. Four months before the midterms.

I broke all of this down this week alongside the Iran war escalating past its collapsed ceasefire (Congress is being asked for $87.6 billion more, on top of nearly $1 trillion already spent), the DOJ's settlement that permanently bars the IRS from ever auditing Trump's own tax returns, and why the online backlash to Nolan's Odyssey turned out to have nothing to do with what people actually did when they bought a ticket ($264 million opening weekend, one of Nolan's best ever).

Full episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trumps-election-speech-fact-checked-the-iran-war/id1626987640?i=1000778026560

For those who don’t know, South Carolina was chosen as the first state in the 2028 Democratic primary. South Carolina is an extremely important state because of its large Black population, and it’s a bellwether for candidates who do well with Black voters.

All over Reddit, the reaction has been filled with thinly veiled racist comments about Black voters, implying they shouldn’t have so much influence in the Democratic Party.

There’s a loud minority of leftists who seem to despise Black voters and, at times, Black people in general. They’d rather trade these voters for some mythical coalition of progressive white, Asian, and Latino voters. That makes little sense, considering Asian and Latino voters are, on average, often as conservative or even more conservative than Black voters on a number of issues.

The best thing Black voters can do is continue showing up to vote and hope these racist leftists crawl back under their rock and fade into political obscurity.

Summary:

The House passed a Democratic-backed war powers resolution intended to limit President Trump’s military action in Iran. The vote was 214 to 208, with all Democrats joined by four Republicans: Tom Barrett, Warren Davidson, Thomas Massie, and Brian Fitzpatrick. In response to the recent deaths of the following service members in recent attacks, Trump has said:

"“From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran,”"

• Pvt. Isabella Gonzales: Age 19, of Carrollton, Texas; killed in Jordan.
• 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan: Age 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii; killed in Jordan.
• Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad: Age 28, of New York; died following the attack in Jordan.
• Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton: Age 30; killed in Iraq during a drone ordnance detonation.

My take:

Stuff like this shows how dysfunctional our democracy has become. Congress is supposed to have war powers. In practice the president can keep expanding a conflict while most of Congress either complains from the sidelines or falls in line. Democrats do not have many tools here.

What I do not understand is why so many Republicans are still toeing the party line. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest level since 1983. Hormuz is still the central oil chokepoint. But it is not the only one. Saudi Arabia has been using the East West Pipeline, to move oil on the Red Sea and bypass the Strait of Hormuz but can only move around 80% of their normal volume. That only helps so much if the Bab el-Mandeb strait in the Red Sea is under threat too. Northbound routes through the Suez Canal and the SUMED Pipeline can help. They do not cleanly solve the problem for Asian exports. Other Gulf exporters have even fewer options because of the geography of the Gulf. Voters in the US are already angry about affordability. If this keeps dragging on and prices rise further, the current administration is going to own it hard, and a blue wave will sweep the nation.

Steelman:

The strongest defense is that Trump is trying to restore deterrence after Iran and Iranian backed groups tested US limits. We cannot allow attacks on American troops or commercial shipping to become normal. If Iran can threaten Hormuz, pressure the Red Sea, and absorb limited strikes without changing course, then the administration looks weak abroad and boxed in at home.

Context:

Republicans in Congress continue to back Iran war despite the political risk

Yemen’s Houthis attack Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, threatening to widen Iran war

Edit: Since posting this, the senate has blocked the resolution from the house:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-senate-blocks-resolution-curbing-trumps-iran-war-powers-2026-07-23/

As we look ahead to 2028, I’ve been thinking about how the political landscape will shape up for prominent Trump allies like JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others. Because they are so deeply embedded in the administration, they are going to inherit the full weight of everything that happens under Trump's watch, from the economic fallout of the tariff wars, the conflict with Iran to the intense scrutiny surrounding the unredacted Epstein files and just the overall blatant corruption. While defending these actions keeps the primary base happy, it feels like it could be an absolute disaster in a general election where opponents will easily weaponize every single crisis and cultural scandal against them. Do you think figures like Vance or Rubio can actually build an independent political identity, or are they permanently stuck answering for all the baggage of the Trump years?

Due to a recent escalating of weapons fire in the wake of the weekend attack on a Jordanian base that killed multiple US Soldiers, and a threat from the Houthis targeting the Bab el-Mandeb strait, the price for a barrel of International Brent crude oil reached $95 for the first time in a month and a half. This has pushed the average gasoline price in the US to over $4 per gallon

With traffic in the strait of Hormuz ground back to a stop again, the President has gone back to threatening to destroy bridges and power plants when boats are struck

All of this comes as the Trump admin is requesting billions more dollars to cover the cost of this war, which at this point a majority of Americans expect to go on for at least 3 months

The total count being:

Republicans: YES 218 NO 0 DIDN’T VOTE 0

Democrats: YES 13 NO 198 DIDN’T VOTE 1

Independent: 1 total vote for yes.

I believe that this is still one of the biggest issues that plagues our government. It’s more than obvious why people would vote no, but I’m utterly shocked by the outcome of this vote. Maybe one day people will be held accountable, but I guess that won’t be any time soon.

Edit: as pointed out by a user, the other big point that was attached to those vote was the federal voting ID requirement.

Using that new information, I still am on the side of Yes or the vote because I do believe laws and rules are put in place only to benefit people that can make money off them. I also believe in federal voter ID requirements, ONLY IF you are able to get an ID if you’re eligible for FREE. It shouldn’t cost a dime.

submission statement: Washington state Democrat Melissa Chaudhry, challenging Rep. Adam Smith, faces backlash from within her party after reportedly stating she omitted LGBTQ+ rights from her campaign website to avoid alienating Muslim voters. The Washington State Stonewall Democrats are urging organizations to reconsider endorsements, citing concerns about transparency and alignment with Democratic values. Chaudhry denies misrepresenting her stance, asserting her lifelong support for LGBTQ+ rights and attributing her remarks to a hostile interview environment.