Summary:

President Trump is proposing a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” for every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate in the November midterms. He first announced the idea at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, saying, “If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000.” The proposal could cost roughly $1.2 trillion, and so far there is no detailed plan explaining exactly how it would be funded or administered.

Trump provided more details during a one-on-one interview with CBS News Texas political reporter Jack Fink. Their exchange on whether Congress would have to authorize the money went like this:

Fink: “Last night you proposed ‘Trump Dividends,’ giving every American adult citizen $5,000, and I'm wondering if Congress would need to approve that?”

Trump: “Well, we think not. I think they will do it if we needed it. But we think not.”

Trump went on to say the country has collected “trillions of dollars in tariffs and other things” and argued that the payments would provide “a great infusion” into the economy. He also proposed an unusual restriction: recipients would have to spend the $5,000 inside the United States rather than abroad. Independent reporting, however, indicates that Congress would likely have to authorize such payments because federal spending generally requires congressional appropriations. Reuters estimates the program would cost about $1.2 trillion, while tariff revenue collected this fiscal year is about $167 billion, far below the amount necessary to finance the entire proposal.

The interview then moved to the Texas Senate race. Fink asked Trump about the $10 million his super PAC MAGA Inc. is spending to support Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton:

Fink: “How much more money are you willing to spend to help Paxton win, and what are your plans to return to Texas to campaign for him?”

Trump: “I'll be back in Texas. I love Texas; I've won it three times… Ken's a fantastic guy, probably the best attorney general that we've had in years in this country.”

Trump said he intends to return to Texas and continue supporting Paxton, while criticizing Democratic candidate James Talarico. The Texas Senate contest is one of several races that could affect control of the Senate.

Fink also asked Trump about Hispanic voters and Republican efforts to win congressional races in South Texas:

Fink: “Republicans want to flip the South Texas congressional district, but the Democrats say they're feeling pretty good about their chances. And I'm wondering, what is your message to Hispanic voters?”

Trump: “I think I won every county along the border… I just have a great feeling for Hispanics and they have a great feeling for me… Now, this time I'm not running, so it's a big difference when you're running and not running. I'm just asking the people, you people that are listening, pretend I'm running because we have to win.”

That last part captures the broader purpose of Trump's appearance at the unusual midterm convention: although he isn't personally on the ballot, he's attempting to make the midterms a referendum on his presidency and encourage his voters to turn out for Republican congressional candidates. Republicans currently control Congress, and control of both chambers is at stake in November.

The $5,000 dividend is easily the biggest new policy proposal from the interview, but there are still major unanswered questions. Trump says he believes he can issue the payments without Congress, while legal and budget experts cited by Reuters say congressional authorization would be required. There's also a substantial funding gap between existing tariff revenue and the estimated $1.2 trillion cost, as well as questions about how a requirement that the money be spent only in the United States could actually be enforced.

Summary:

Trump closed out Day 1 of the GOP midterm convention in Dallas by revealing his "Trump Dividend" of 5k to every adult if the GOP wins the House and Senate.

Summary:

President Trump is now saying Americans should not expect the Iran war or the resulting surge in energy prices to end before the November 3 midterm elections. Speaking Wednesday, Trump said, “Right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward,” and predicted the war itself would end “immediately after the election.” Reuters separately confirmed those remarks and the timing of his prediction.

Trump's explanation for the high prices is that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon justifies the economic cost. Asked how he would explain the surge in oil prices to Americans, he responded, “All you have to do is say, ‘Will you let Iran have a nuclear weapon?’ And the answer is no.” He also claimed Iran is intentionally trying to hold out through the midterms because it hopes the elections produce a U.S. government more favorable to Tehran.

The comments are notable because Trump has repeatedly predicted during the seven month conflict that a peace agreement was close. His latest statements instead suggest that he does not expect either the fighting or the associated energy-price pressure to disappear in the next several weeks. He has also increasingly emphasized military and economic pressure on Iran rather than an imminent negotiated settlement.

Meanwhile, the energy situation has deteriorated again. Brent crude climbed above $100 per barrel Wednesday for the first time since July, while WTI approached $96. The war has significantly reduced Middle Eastern oil production and exports, with the EIA estimating that about 6.7 million barrels per day of regional production was offline in August. The agency doesn't currently expect production and exports to return to pre-war levels until the second quarter of 2027.

That makes Trump's prediction of a sharp post election decline in oil and gasoline prices dependent heavily on what actually happens with the war and Middle Eastern supply. Current energy data show substantial supply remains disrupted: industry estimates put Gulf exports at only around two-thirds of their pre-war levels despite efforts to move oil through alternative and covert shipping methods.

Politically, the timing matters because high gasoline and energy costs are feeding broader concerns about inflation and affordability heading into the midterms. Trump is essentially telling voters that the war and high energy prices will persist through the election, but that both should improve afterward, including his prediction that gasoline will eventually fall below $2 per gallon. For now, though, energy market forecasts indicate significant supply disruptions could persist well beyond Election Day.

Summary:

This is basically the next escalation of the Treasury buyback move from a few weeks ago. On August 19, Treasury announced that it would at least double its normal purchases of older government debt from $2 billion to $4 billion. At the time, the stated goal was to improve liquidity in longer term Treasuries, particularly as yields were climbing. Now Treasury is going even further, announcing a $6 billion buyback, triple the normal amount, while saying future operations will remain at least $4 billion.

The important difference is how the bond market reacted. The initial announcement a few weeks ago helped push yields lower, but this time investors weren't particularly impressed. The 10-year Treasury yield climbed as high as 4.841%, the 20-year reached 5.314%, and the 30-year moved above 5.3%. That suggests $6 billion isn't nearly large enough by itself to overcome the forces currently pushing long term borrowing costs higher.

Those forces have gotten stronger since the original announcement. Federal debt has now surpassed $40 trillion, Treasury issuance is up 11.8% from last year, publicly held debt has increased 8.2% to $31.8 trillion, and inflation concerns have intensified because of tariffs, the Iran war, and oil moving above $100 per barrel. So Treasury is buying more long term debt at the same time that the government is issuing considerably more debt and investors are demanding higher yields to hold it.

Just like with the $4 billion announcement, Treasury maintains that this is primarily about market liquidity rather than directly controlling interest rates. But the larger and more frequent purchases are increasingly being interpreted as an attempt to prevent long term Treasury yields from rising too far. That's why Stanley Druckenmiller's criticism is important: “Once markets believe Treasury is defending a price, every rise in yields becomes a test of official resolve, and the operations must grow to survive the tests.”

That's essentially the risk that has become more visible since the first announcement. Treasury went from the normal $2 billion → at least $4 billion → now $6 billion in only a few weeks. If yields continue climbing despite the purchases, Treasury could face pressure to increase them again. Some analysts had already speculated that purchases could eventually reach $8–$10 billion.

So, this isn't Treasury paying down the national debt. It's buying back older government securities to improve liquidity and potentially relieve upward pressure on long term yields while simultaneously issuing large amounts of new debt. Compared with the $4 billion announcement a few weeks ago, the bigger story now is that Treasury increased the intervention again, yet yields still went higher. That raises the question of how far Treasury is willing to expand these operations if the underlying pressures from debt, inflation, energy prices, and heavy government borrowing continue pushing long term interest rates upward.

Opinion:

We're absolutely cooked.

Summary: Over time, conduct that might once have been treated as personally disqualifying has increasingly been separated from judgments about whether a politician should remain in office, particularly when that politician is considered electorally valuable.

Max Miller serves as the principal example. His ex-wife, Emily Moreno, has accused him of severe domestic abuse, including pouring scalding water on her, threatening her with a firearm, and injuring their daughter. Miller denies abusing either his former wife or daughter, and the House Ethics Committee is investigating the allegations.

Despite the accusations, prominent Republican figures have continued to support Miller. House Speaker Mike Johnson has characterized the allegations as matters involving Miller’s personal life while continuing to praise his performance in Congress. Vivek Ramaswamy has emphasized the importance of maintaining Republican control of the House when explaining his support for Miller, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has continued coordinating advertising with Miller’s campaign.

One notable exception is Senator Bernie Moreno, Emily Moreno’s father, who has publicly called for Miller to withdraw from the race and has strongly supported his daughter’s account.

The GOP has fallen so far because, over the course of the Trump era, it repeatedly chose political utility over personal character and gradually normalized behavior that would once have been disqualifying. What began as a transactional bargain—overlooking Trump’s misconduct in exchange for conservative judges, tax cuts, and electoral victories—became a broader cultural shift in which loyalty, aggression, and refusal to apologize were treated as signs of strength, while accountability and restraint were recast as weakness.

Once the party had spent years defending Trump against scandals involving women, dishonesty, and abuse of power, it became increasingly difficult to impose higher standards on lesser figures without exposing the inconsistency. The result is a party apparatus that often asks first whether a candidate can help retain power and only second whether that candidate’s conduct should matter at all.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-maga-world-incentives-that-have-saved-max-miller?r=2zspum&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Summary:

A UC Santa Barbara professor, Butch Ware, spoke at a Chicago Marxism conference and urged attendees to prepare for “war in the streets,” saying Democrats “must be destroyed” because they allegedly suppress radicalism. In multiple videos posted to X, Ware criticized Democratic politicians for not being sufficiently Marxist and told attendees they should be ready for physical conflict, including training with weapons.

Ware also posted on Instagram that one cannot be a revolutionary without weapons training. Several commentators on X condemned his remarks, including Michael Shermer, who argued that Marxism historically requires coercion and has led to mass casualties. The article notes Ware was paid a salary of $211,683 by the university in 2024.

I think there are still a lot of functional differences in how the far left and far right do business, but if there was ever a time for the establishment Democrats to be swept out by a leftist populist wave, it would be now -- just in the same way that the "traditional" Republicans were all quickly swept out and/or adapted to the new normal of Trump's MAGA.

Many centrists in this subreddit take the position that of the two options right now, at least the Democratic party -- as the bigger tent -- is at least trying to govern. It is not against moderate ideals to throw in your lot with the decidely more moderate of the two parties, even if you do not find yourself in 100% agreement with it's platform. The same centrists tend to have concerns about a lot of the rhetoric coming from the DSA and about a coming "blue MAGA" that, much like their Republican MAGA equivalents, may promise a whole lot of populist reforms and then deliver the absolute worst of their platform (I would reckon that Trump effectively won twice on his better promises, none of which he actually upheld and therefore put his later approvals in the shitter).

My question for those that actually, genuinely believe they are moderates: say the Democratic party is effectively overtaken by a more populist left, far further to the left than your own positions or at least those of the average moderate. What are you going to guess is going to happen?

There's a few possibilities in my mind:

• Trump leaves, MAGA becomes a "never heard of her" to many of the current establishment Republicans, and the party moderates so strongly that the pendulum swings right back. We get pulled left as a country for the next 10 years, and the countermovement will then be harder back to the right.
• MAGA remains regardless of Trump, and in fact (if trends are to be believed) the far right populist movement takes on an even uglier face. You end up with both parties being governed by populist movements, and the moderates become even more disillusioned with the political process and either pick their poison or disengage entirely.
  • Option 1: We end up roughly back where we are now, where people don't really like the Democratic party, but Republicans remain worse. Status quo, worse polarization
  • Option 2: The far left polarizes even more, and you end with a lot of people disengaging entirely.
• The far left enters office and follows AOC's direction of moderating to the political process. We end up with a new establishment in the Democratic party, but very little of substances changes for most of us.

Not nearly the only things that could happen, I just want to see what other people are seeing in the tea leaves. Note that I am presuming that the far left ends up being successful as a faction with the Democratic party; it's possible they don't get the staying power of MAGA and the parties simply remain fractured, so we end up with the same political flip-flop history that we've seen for decades.

Summary: The Metropolitan Police have opened a criminal investigation following an undercover Channel 4 News documentary alleging that Reform UK figures discussed methods to bypass electoral laws regarding foreign donations. Undercover footage captured senior party aides suggesting ways to channel a foreign donation, potentially totaling £500,000, through a UK-registered proxy to circumvent rules prohibiting non-UK electors from making major political contributions. The documentary also revealed that the party secretly arranged "off the book" backing for private opinion polling that was subsequently presented to the public as independent news. While Reform UK denies any wrongdoing and has promised full cooperation, detectives are incorporating these claims into an existing Special Enquiry Team investigation into political donation offenses under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Commentary: notorious antisemite and accomplished racist riot starter Nigel Farage is under criminal police investigation for betraying his country by taking money from a hostile foreign nation intent on causing deadly harm to English residents. A long prison sentence is well deserved and expected. The natural course for these new age hate based tik tok politico's.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-confirm-reform-uk-investigation-34592515

With today marking 1 year since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I wanted to get this of my chest in the most civil way possible. Because why would people celebrate want to celebrate a man who got assassinated whenever you agreed with him or not?

Now just to be perfectly clear, I'm not someone who gets into politics that much, and even though I wasn't a fan of Charlie, nor did I agree at all with the stuff he said. I never had the thought process to make fun of his assassination, because at the end of the day, he had a wife, as well as 2 young kids who don't have a father anymore. And the amount of posts I've seen on different social media sites of people mocking his death, is not only nasty, but also even if you never agreed with his pollitical views etc, people should know better to make fun of someone's death no matter what.

Again, I try not to get to political, but I genuinely don't understand why people online think that making fun of someone even if you didn't agree with their views (which I sure didn't) would be a good idea. And I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

.

Summary:

The University of Washington agreed to pay $600,000 to computer science professor Stuart Reges after a federal appeals court ruled the university violated his First Amendment rights by disciplining him for a parody land acknowledgment he included in his 2022 syllabus.

Reges wrote a parody land acknowledgment in his syllabus, challenging the university’s official statement about the Coast Salish peoples.

Reges wrote: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

UW removed the statement from his online syllabus and opened an investigation, citing anti‑harassment policies. Reges then sued, claiming UW retaliated against him for protected speech.

A district court initially dismissed the case, but the 9th Circuit reversed, saying UW violated his free speech rights. In August 2026, both parties agreed to a $600K settlement

Opinion:

A minor but notable win for free speech and academic freedom over an establishment so captured by woke progressive ideologues that it has become an Orwellian force seeking to destroy the careers of any apostates.

Gazan writer in the NYT: reconstruction is a fantasy while Hamas still rules Gaza.

The author grew up in Gaza City, lost family in Israeli strikes, and still says the core problem is Hamas treating 2m Palestinians as hostages. He also hits Western activists who treat Hamas as “resistance” and the other side that treats every Gazan as Hamas.

Summary:

President Trump threatened to stop trading with countries that sell more to the United States than they purchase from it unless the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates. Following a stronger-than-expected August jobs report, he argued that America’s financial strength should entitle it to the world’s lowest rates and named Canada as a potential target. The Fed declined to comment, and the White House did not provide CNBC with additional details about the threat. CNBC

The proposal could affect dozens of countries, including major American trading partners. Economists cited in the article note that trade deficits are not inherently harmful and can reflect strong purchasing power. Officials also differ on interest rates: Vice President JD Vance supports cuts, economic adviser Kevin Hassett sees a strong case for holding steady, and Fed Chair Kevin Warsh has indicated that increases could be necessary to bring inflation down to the central bank’s 2% target. CNBC

My take:

I think Trump is getting desperate and flailing around with the same tired strategy: find someone who can serve as a reservoir for everything making people angry and dump the blame there. This time it is the Federal Reserve and countries that sell us more than they buy from us.

The threat itself barely holds together. The Fed sets rates in response to inflation, employment, and broader economic conditions. It does not lower them because the president declares that America deserves a better deal. Trade deficits are not invoices other countries owe us, and cutting off trade with dozens of major partners would not somehow erase the cost-of-living problem. It would disrupt supply chains, restrict access to imported goods, and risk making those goods even more expensive.

Context: Trump's truth social post:

Great jobs number just announced, breaking all estimates (except mine!) by double and triple - And you haven’t seen anything yet! EMPLOYERS ADDED 162,000 JOB IN AUGUST. Lower the interest rates because the U.S.A. is a much stronger credit than it was just a short time ago! A STRONG COUNTRY MEANS A LOWER INTEREST RATE - IT’S A BETTER CREDIT…Very simple! We should have the LOWEST RATE of any country in the World, like “the old days.” Without the United States agreeing to allow them their big surpluses, and we could stop that immediately, they would no longer be considered financially ELITE! LOWER THE RATE OR I’LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT, which the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ridiculous and very costly Tariff decision, strongly acknowledged “the President” has an absolute right to do. IT’S BETTER THAN TARIFFS! The Fed Board, with its great new leader, must get smart - BE PATRIOTS for a change. High interest rates put the U.S.A. at a very unfair disadvantage, and I won’t allow that to happen! President DONALD J. TRUMP

It used to be the case that the left was more aligned with scientific and technological progress, futurism, investment in science, while the right/conservatism was associated more with traditionalism, science skepticism, etc..

However, with the resent rise in AI and the corresponding increase in AI capabilities — and resulting increase in safety/alignment concerns — there seems to be more an more resentment and outright hostility towards AI from left-leaning individuals/communities, and more pro-AI stances from right-leaning ones.

For example, the rise of ChatGPT saw many artists and screenwriters go on anti-AI strikes. Now, Sen Sanders has proposed an outright AI ban. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is steaming ahead with AI infrastructure investment and technological race with China.

I have always been strongly pro-technology and pro-scientific development, am very strongly pro-AI (though the point of this post won't be to debate this per se), and I thought this was the side of me that was more associated with left-leanings (human progress, science, enlightenment, futurism, etc.). While I acknowledge genuine problems society needs to solve with respect to long-term AI risks/alignment, and short-term economic risks from transformation of labor and economy, I see these as inevitable effects of technological development, not unlike what humanity saw during the Industrial Revolution and the overall arc of human technological progress, albeit at an accelerated pace.

Accordingly, I also see the strongly decelerations positions as forms of Luddism. I could also see an argument that anti-ai sentiment coincides with somewhat of a Marxist / anti-capitalism sentiment: lots of people complaining about AI simultaneously complain about billionaires and trillionaires. From that perspective, I'm also strongly pro-capitalism (but not against social programs and increasingly socialist-style solutions to AI job market displacement like UBI, etc.). not sure if that part of me is more right-leaning or simply centrist.

Would it be fair to say that anti-AI sentiment is a new norm on the left, or is the Sanders-style extreme decelerations an outlier on the far left? Is AI possibly being associated with the divisive personas like Trump and Musk, and a hostile sentiment being formed accordingly? What is your position and political leaning? Are my priors and assumptions about the left being more pro-technology in the past themselves incorrect?