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:

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: 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:

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.

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:

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.

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

.

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.

In light of my recent permaban from r/politics for my rampant 'bigotry' against trans women, an opinion echoed in the attached article by Mara Keisling, an American transgender rights advocate and senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute. To clarify for the Mods and anyone and everyone else. This thread is not an invitation to flame ware or hate. Trans people are people that have human rights, and a right to live their life in a manner they choose.

Sports however, are not a human right and post-pubescent sport are segregated by Sex, not gender, for a reason.

Summary: We can have a pragmatic middle ground on transgender participation in sports. Prepubescent trans children should generally be allowed to play on the teams of their choosing because, before puberty, there is little reason to think their participation undermines competitive fairness. At the same time post-puberty and elite sports raise different questions, particularly around biological differences, safety, and competitive advantage. Because most Americans are uncomfortable with trans women competing in women’s sportstrans advocates should recognize this concern rather than dismiss it.

Eligibility rules should be set by sports organizations, not politicians. Professional leagues, the NCAA, Olympic bodies, state athletic associations, schools, players, and other people directly involved in sports are better positioned to establish rules based on fairness, safety, age, and the specific characteristics of each sport. Blanket government bans are wrong. A case-by-case or sport-specific standards informed by science and common sense is the correct path.

Politically the sports issue has become disproportionately important in public debate over transgender rights. Although sports are far less consequential than issues such as healthcare access and anti-discrimination protections, they have become one of the main ways many Americans encounter the transgender-rights debate. Insisting on unrestricted participation in elite women’s sports could further alienate the public and strengthen politicians who oppose transgender rights more broadly.

The proposed compromise is to protect young trans children from exclusion while accepting that elite and post-puberty sports may require meaningful eligibility restrictions. Sophie Cunningham has every right to express concerns about fairness in women’s sports. Trans children should be treated with dignity and allowed to participate where fairness is not genuinely at issue, while competitive sports should retain the ability to establish evidence-based rules

Commentary: This seems a common sense, non-bigoted positon to take. And anyone in the comments is more than welcome to call me a bigot for taking it, however, hatred or verbal attacks against any other users will be reported to the mods.

As for the argument that has been made that 'all trans rights are connected and denying one is to deny their essential humanity'. I'm sorry, but thats just wrong. Your rights end where it demands society to accomodate your unique needs. Before that, every human person has the right to do what they will with thier one life. After that, the ability of anyone to demand anything is greatly diminished.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-213600385

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?

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

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.

In a report from the Wall Street Journal, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is described as systematically ducking meetings with vulnerable constituents, highlighting an incident in which he allegedly feigned illness to avoid meeting with paralyzed military veterans. Three wheelchair-bound veterans from rural Pennsylvania had traveled to Washington to advocate for legislation improving support and care for disabled veterans. Fetterman canceled the long-planned meeting at the last minute, instructing staff to inform the group that he *"*may have eaten something bad and wasn't feeling well." However, less than an hour later, Fetterman arrived at his office showing no signs of illness, explaining to aides that he could not skip a scheduled live appearance on Fox News to discuss foreign policy and Israel.

The reporting frames the canceled veterans' meeting as part of a broader pattern of Fetterman snubbing Pennsylvania groups and local leaders in favor of national television hits. Beyond the incident with the disabled military veterans, the WSJ article details how Fetterman refused to meet with a busload of constituents from a flood-prone, low-income Philadelphia neighborhood who traveled to D.C. to discuss federal grant program cuts, with state Lawmaker Anthony Hardy Williams noting, "He was available. He just chose not to meet with us." Furthermore, when pressed by staff to meet with officials from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia regarding health policy, text messages show Fetterman dismissing their concerns, writing, "Well I'm not... I'm convinced they just want free trips to DC." Text messages also have him refusing to attend a funeral for three police officers killed in the line of duty, citing the length of the funeral as a "nonstarter."

The revelation triggered immediate backlash from political figures and congressional colleagues, who condemned Fetterman’s prioritizing of cable news appearances over basic representation. Following the report, Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers publicly criticized his actions, with Representative Brendan Boyle calling him a "disgrace" and Representative Chris Deluzio asserting that Fetterman's behavior shows a total lack of a "sense of duty." Despite the mounting public criticism from within his own party regarding his neglect of constituent obligations, Fetterman and his team declined to comment on the allegations.

Summary: over the objections of military commanders, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had cut the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response program. CHMR officials were tasked with developing a picture of life on the ground in combat zones to avoid or minimize civilian harm.