Despite losing the election, Kamala Harris actually slightly *improved* upon Joe Biden's performance with white voters according to CNN's exit polls of those two years (R+17 in 2020 vs. R+15 in 2024).  Compare that with Democrats' performance in 2016 and 2012 when they lost this group by 20 both years.\*

This may not seem like a lot, but white voters are a majority of the electorate and disproportionately powerful in the electoral college, so even this small swing, if sustainable, could have very serious ramifications for future elections even if it wasn't enough to save Harris in 2024.

But is this sustainable?  Or is it a peculiar product of the Trump era that will go away once he's no longer on the ballot?

It seems that it may be worth thinking about who these voters are.  Are these well-off suburban whites who are socially progressive but economically more conservative ("Romney Republicans") who will "come home" to the GOP?  Or is this a more long-term demographic change as more conservative older white voters are replaced by more progressive white voters from younger (but now becoming middle aged) generations?

Really one of the most interesting questions is why this shift only started showing up \*after\* 2016.  That makes it seem like whatever is happening is more complex than just Trump himself being in the mix.  What do you think is the explanation and what does it portend for the future?

\*For the 2012 data, I'm relying on NYT's exit poll website, rather than CNN, but the data is part of a consortium that still included CNN at that time.

Are Democrats' recent gains with white voters sustainable beyond the Trump era?

Despite losing the election, Kamala Harris actually slightly improved upon Joe Biden&#39;s performance with white voters according to CNN&#39;s exit polls of those two years (R+17 in 2020 vs. R+15 in 2024).  Compare that with Democrats&#39; performance in 2016 and 2012 when they lost this group by 20 both years.*

This may not seem like a lot, but white voters are a majority of the electorate and disproportionately powerful in the electoral college, so even this small swing, if sustainable, could have very serious ramifications for future elections even if it wasn&#39;t enough to save Harris in 2024.

But is this sustainable?  Or is it a peculiar product of the Trump era that will go away once he&#39;s no longer on the ballot?

It seems that it may be worth thinking about who these voters are.  Are these well-off suburban whites who are socially progressive but economically more conservative (&quot;Romney Republicans&quot;) who will &quot;come home&quot; to the GOP?  Or is this a more long-term demographic change as more conservative older white voters are replaced by more progressive white voters from younger (but now becoming middle aged) generations?

Really one of the most interesting questions is why this shift only started showing up *after* 2016.  That makes it seem like whatever is happening is more complex than just Trump himself being in the mix.  What do you think is the explanation and what does it portend for the future?

*For the 2012 data, I&#39;m relying on NYT&#39;s exit poll website, rather than CNN, but the data is part of a consortium that still included CNN at that time.


Speaker Tip O Niel is quoted as saying "All Politics Is Local.". While not true, the foundation of a strong democracy and trust in the system is often based on how well you can trust things at the more local level. How can the federal government be good if the states are governing uselessly?

By branches, I mean the traditional executive, legislative, and judicial powers, and if your state does not begin in N and end in Ebraska, how well the lower and upper houses in your state legislature are also balanced relative to the other two branches and each other.

Most have similar powers, or at least the same principal powers, though often done in different ways, like the power to override a veto with a supermajority in most states, the state senate confirms appointments by the governor, the governor or heads of departments and boards create regulations and executive rules subject to legislative consent or override, and the courts strike down unconstitutional laws and orders of the executive which violate the constitution or statutory law. The people however usually have some input into the judges selection and to decide on laws or the state constitution, to recall officials, and pardons are often done by the decision of an independent board and the judges in states without an election are rarely nominated by the governor without some input from an independent board.

How well balanced do you think the branches of government are in your state?

Speaker Tip O Niel is quoted as saying &quot;All Politics Is Local.&quot;. While not true, the foundation of a strong democracy and trust in the system is often based on how well you can trust things at the more local level. How can the federal government be good if the states are governing uselessly?

By branches, I mean the traditional executive, legislative, and judicial powers, and if your state does not begin in N and end in Ebraska, how well the lower and upper houses in your state legislature are also balanced relative to the other two branches and each other.

Most have similar powers, or at least the same principal powers, though often done in different ways, like the power to override a veto with a supermajority in most states, the state senate confirms appointments by the governor, the governor or heads of departments and boards create regulations and executive rules subject to legislative consent or override, and the courts strike down unconstitutional laws and orders of the executive which violate the constitution or statutory law. The people however usually have some input into the judges selection and to decide on laws or the state constitution, to recall officials, and pardons are often done by the decision of an independent board and the judges in states without an election are rarely nominated by the governor without some input from an independent board.


If you were to build a representation system in America from scratch how would you do it? How about just a union for the people? A way for the american people to concentrate and refine their voice so that they can better influence government?


I’m referring to the inter-war period where people started to doubt democracy and support grew for other forms of government with populist rhetoric by leaders/candidates encouraging intense nationalism be leaning into propaganda or disinformation like Stab-In-The Back myths that created a common “enemy” to blame and rally against.

There’s quite a few parallels between now and what happened roughly ~100 years ago in terms of what politicians are saying, promoting, doing in policy making as well as what ideologies and forms of government are reemerging despite historically being unsuccessful. There’s also less push for reform within the institutions, and instead pointing to different group(s) as the issue/problem and calls to burn down the institution to create something totally different. That belief in its current form is even being promoted from both “accelerationists” labeled as domestic terrorists and elected politicians within the institutions.

I’d like to hear if you agree or disagree if the parallels are enough to suggest we’re experiencing the same shift in forms of government or heading that direction and why. And if you agree, what do you think caused it? Is there a definitive primary catalyst/event that created the current political environment? Are we shifting from democracy into something more authoritarian or a consolidation of power or different leadership that represents the opposite of the current form of government?

Do you think the US and Europe are experiencing a similar shift like the West did after WWI where doubt about democracy grew into new forms of government via populism and nationalism? If so, what do you think is the 21 century “WWI” event that has lead to this current political environment?


Basically, say that nothing dissuades him. He's made multiple declarations of intent, asked Denmark multiple times, and they say no. He offers more and more money, and they keep saying no. He places punishing sanctions, and they still don't buckle. So he says he needs to take military action because there is a credible threat that Russia/China/Iran/whatever are using Greenland to attack the United States, and even frames it as an act of self-defence.

As commander-in-chief, he orders the military to invade Greenland. Officially, he needs approval in the Senate, but there are creative ways around that. Even if most politicians (and even most Americans) do not wish the war to happen, what happens then? Will resolutions passed in the House, or anything else that happens politically or judicially be able to stop him?

If Trump orders military action against Denmark/Greenland, are there checks and balances within the military/courts/Congress that can stop him doing so, and will those checks and balances actually be able to stop him?

Basically, say that nothing dissuades him. He&#39;s made multiple declarations of intent, asked Denmark multiple times, and they say no. He offers more and more money, and they keep saying no. He places punishing sanctions, and they still don&#39;t buckle. So he says he needs to take military action because there is a credible threat that Russia/China/Iran/whatever are using Greenland to attack the United States, and even frames it as an act of self-defence.

As commander-in-chief, he orders the military to invade Greenland. Officially, he needs approval in the Senate, but there are creative ways around that. Even if most politicians (and even most Americans) do not wish the war to happen, what happens then? Will resolutions passed in the House, or anything else that happens politically or judicially be able to stop him?


In theory, there a myriad of political issues that both sides of the spectrum should either agree on, on be close enough in perspective that a solution that appeals to both sides can be reached. However both sides of the political spectrum are rather translucent as to what their core values are that cannot be compromised. Thus making it difficult to perceive the root of the political division that makes the political landscape so polarized. What are the main blockades, policies, or issues that prevent Americans from being on the same page at a core level, with disagreements arising in secondary or tertiary concerns? Is it international policy, economics, immigration, NATO, etc?

What are the main blockades to bipartisanism in the US?


Partisanship—the strong allegiance to a specific political party or ideology—has been one of the biggest challenges to progress in modern America. By its nature, partisanship often creates an “us vs. them” mentality, where people view opposing ideas not as opportunities for dialogue but as threats to their own beliefs. This mindset hinders collaboration and creates division, making it difficult to address the complex issues our nation faces today.

For a country as diverse and multifaceted as the United States, is it realistic—or even beneficial—to align strictly with one side of the political spectrum? Can we find ways to value compromise and shared goals without abandoning our principles?

In leadership, for example, it’s possible to respect someone’s achievements or policies even if we don’t agree with their rhetoric or personal values. This perspective challenges the idea that political affiliation defines the entirety of someone’s worth as a leader. When we judge based solely on party lines, we may miss opportunities to learn from or work with individuals who could otherwise contribute to progress.

The question then becomes: how do we, as individuals and as a nation, move beyond rigid partisanship? What steps can we take to create a more open-minded and collaborative political environment?

Let’s discuss the impact of partisanship on America’s future and explore potential solutions for building unity in these divided times.

Do you think we can overcome political bias?


It's technically a "problem" that birth rates are below replacement level in almost any country that's at least semi-developed. I want to know why exactly birth rates are below replacement level, not necessarily argue whether or not it's a bad thing.

When I see people argue why the birth rates are so low they often bring up policies thst benefits people with prospects of becoming parents, however this seemingly doesn't actually affect the birth rates at all. An example I'll use are the Nordic countries (which have some of the strongest policies when it comes to aiding people in parenthood) that still have below replacement level birth rates.

What's the real reason birth rates are so low?

Why are birth rates so low?

It&#39;s technically a &quot;problem&quot; that birth rates are below replacement level in almost any country that&#39;s at least semi-developed. I want to know why exactly birth rates are below replacement level, not necessarily argue whether or not it&#39;s a bad thing.

When I see people argue why the birth rates are so low they often bring up policies thst benefits people with prospects of becoming parents, however this seemingly doesn&#39;t actually affect the birth rates at all. An example I&#39;ll use are the Nordic countries (which have some of the strongest policies when it comes to aiding people in parenthood) that still have below replacement level birth rates.

What&#39;s the real reason birth rates are so low?


I’m asking because calling it an invasion is a political position some take.  I didn’t see a rule saying I can’t state my position in the post, but I definitely want to invite answers from people with different perspectives for a thorough discussion.

It is easy to assume one’s own perspective is the obvious one, and it’s an emotional issue for many.

The follow-up would be, should armed intervention be used?

However, I really am more wanting to focus on the question in the title.  What characteristics of an invasion does the current or past US southern border immigration have of an invasion?  What characteristics does it lack?

Edit: I don’t think the idea that it’s an invasion is mainstream yet, but I think Trump’s serious about calling it that.

How does border immigration compare or contrast with an invasion?  What characteristics of one does it have or lack?


From the whitehouse.gov:

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order entitled Declassification of Records Concerning the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

No other President has tried to declassify these documents. Is there a downside?

Should President Trump Declassify Documents Concerning the Assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK? Why or Why Not? Is This A Dangerous Precedent?


I read today that Trump signed an executive order granting himself the power to fire civil servants. Previously, these workers were protected to ensure the civil service remained non-partisan. According to the article, this change could allow Trump to fire up to 50,000 federal employees. The article indicated many cuts would be because of a distrust of the departments and various other political reasons. While I’m not saying he will fire that many, I do have many questions about the possible firings.

	1.	Wouldn’t adding so many people to the unemployment rolls be a significant issue? Has anyone considered the impact on local businesses—shops, restaurants, coffee shops, and other services—that rely on these federal employees as customers? The job losses could extend far beyond the federal workforce as many countries saw during the pandemic shutdowns and work from home.
	2.	What happens to these people when they lose their health insurance and livelihoods? Does the administration have a plan to offset this? Does the US have an unemployment insurance program?
	3.	Who will perform these jobs and deliver the services that Americans rely on? Will everything grind to a halt? Or will these be positions that are really unnecessary?
	4.	if these cuts are truly political will cutting these services hurt Trump’s supporters as well? Wouldn’t they be negatively affected by reduced government assistance or fewer public services?
	5.	Are there any plans to help these displaced employees find new jobs? Will the economy be able to absorb them.

Maybe stupid questions, but mass cuts based on politics,  seem reckless and a bit heartless to me.

What Is the Trump Administration Plan for Mass Civil Service Layoffs?


In the 1960s and 1970s, music was a powerful tool for political expression and protest. Songs like Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'", Edwin Starr’s "War", and The Beatles’ "Revolution" became anthems for change, speaking directly to the injustices of the time — civil rights struggles, the Vietnam War, and economic inequality. These songs echoed a collective desire for progress and a better future.

Fast forward to today, and many members of the Baby Boomer generation—the very ones who helped create this powerful music—are now among the most ardent supporters of Donald Trump. This is especially striking considering how much of the political activism and social consciousness of the 60s and 70s was a direct reaction to authoritarianism, injustice, and the excesses of the elite.
Some examples of iconic political songs from that era:

	•	Bob Dylan – "The Times They Are A-Changin’" (1964): This song captured the essence of the 1960s political shift, urging people to embrace change and fight for justice.

	•	Edwin Starr – "War" (1970): A powerful anti-Vietnam War anthem that called out the horrors of conflict and questioned the motives behind it.

	•	The Beatles – "Revolution" (1968): A song that challenged the status quo and called for a revolutionary change, reflective of the broader counterculture movements of the time.

	•	Buffalo Springfield – "For What It’s Worth"(1966): A protest song addressing the social unrest and growing tension in the country, often interpreted as a critique of government repression.

These songs weren’t just catchy tunes; they were calls to action, social commentary, and even direct criticism of the establishment.
So, here’s the question: How did a generation that pushed for progressive political change through their music end up aligning with a political figure whose rhetoric and policies seem to contrast so starkly with the values of the 60s and 70s?

Is it a case of cultural nostalgia clouding their judgment? A result of shifting political landscapes? Or has there been a fundamental change in values and priorities within this group?

How can the generation that created and embraced these songs now support someone like Trump? Was it the power of the political system or the media that shifted their perspectives, or something deeper? What do you all think?

How did the generation that once created powerful political protest music come to embrace Trump?

In the 1960s and 1970s, music was a powerful tool for political expression and protest. Songs like Bob Dylan&#39;s &quot;The Times They Are A-Changin&#39;&quot;, Edwin Starr’s &quot;War&quot;, and The Beatles’ &quot;Revolution&quot; became anthems for change, speaking directly to the injustices of the time — civil rights struggles, the Vietnam War, and economic inequality. These songs echoed a collective desire for progress and a better future.

Fast forward to today, and many members of the Baby Boomer generation—the very ones who helped create this powerful music—are now among the most ardent supporters of Donald Trump. This is especially striking considering how much of the political activism and social consciousness of the 60s and 70s was a direct reaction to authoritarianism, injustice, and the excesses of the elite.
Some examples of iconic political songs from that era:

• Bob Dylan – &quot;The Times They Are A-Changin’&quot; (1964): This song captured the essence of the 1960s political shift, urging people to embrace change and fight for justice.

• Edwin Starr – &quot;War&quot; (1970): A powerful anti-Vietnam War anthem that called out the horrors of conflict and questioned the motives behind it.

• The Beatles – &quot;Revolution&quot; (1968): A song that challenged the status quo and called for a revolutionary change, reflective of the broader counterculture movements of the time.

• Buffalo Springfield – &quot;For What It’s Worth&quot;(1966): A protest song addressing the social unrest and growing tension in the country, often interpreted as a critique of government repression.

These songs weren’t just catchy tunes; they were calls to action, social commentary, and even direct criticism of the establishment.
So, here’s the question: How did a generation that pushed for progressive political change through their music end up aligning with a political figure whose rhetoric and policies seem to contrast so starkly with the values of the 60s and 70s?

Is it a case of cultural nostalgia clouding their judgment? A result of shifting political landscapes? Or has there been a fundamental change in values and priorities within this group?

How can the generation that created and embraced these songs now support someone like Trump? Was it the power of the political system or the media that shifted their perspectives, or something deeper? What do you all think?


The question has two parts.

Part A: Is it actually possible?

Is the idea of meritocracy really possible, or is it a utopia only in paper? Note that meritocracy differs significantly from socialism, since socialism/marxism provides equality for everyone, regardless of their wealth or talent. But meritocracy favors talent over wealth. It agrees with socialism on disregard for inherited wealth, but argues people should be given opportunities based on their "merit", which is talent, intelligence, or even beauty. I believe the idea is romanticized in many cyberpunk settings, such as Metropolis (1927) and The Matrix (1999); dystopian societies where rich people are rewarded and poor, talented people are discriminated. It criticizes both capitalism and marxism.

Problem 1: Who determines who's worthy and who's not? Government? Corporates? And who chooses them?

Problem 2: What defines "merit"? What is the standard of being intelligent/talented?

Problem 3: How can we make sure corruption does not happen, and reach true meritocracy?

Problem 4: Should genetic traits such as intelligence, strength, and beauty only be rewarded, or acquired traits such as hard work should be too?

Part B: If it's possible, is it a good thing?

Let's say somehow, we get close to the idea of true meritocracy. But is this a good thing for a society? If you're good in something, you'll be rewarded. But people with average intelligence/capability will have many challenges. Maybe we can work on giving the "average" citizen a descent, livable life; but even then, is it moral?

Pros:

\- Talentless rich people are given the same starting point as talented poor people, where the latter can shine.

\- If hard work is rewarded too, then only you decide your fate. There is no excuse for poverty.

\- If done correctly, social injustice rarely happens. Everyone gets what they "deserve". Good people live well, average people live averagely, and bad people live badly.

Cons:

\- "Talentless" people, whatever defines that, will live harshly. They're humans too.

\- What happens to families' legacies if there is no inheritance?

\- The society needs constant monitoring and control, where corruption can happen easily.

Can true meritocracy work?

The question has two parts.

Part A: Is it actually possible?

Is the idea of meritocracy really possible, or is it a utopia only in paper? Note that meritocracy differs significantly from socialism, since socialism/marxism provides equality for everyone, regardless of their wealth or talent. But meritocracy favors talent over wealth. It agrees with socialism on disregard for inherited wealth, but argues people should be given opportunities based on their &quot;merit&quot;, which is talent, intelligence, or even beauty. I believe the idea is romanticized in many cyberpunk settings, such as Metropolis (1927) and The Matrix (1999); dystopian societies where rich people are rewarded and poor, talented people are discriminated. It criticizes both capitalism and marxism.

Problem 1: Who determines who&#39;s worthy and who&#39;s not? Government? Corporates? And who chooses them?

Problem 2: What defines &quot;merit&quot;? What is the standard of being intelligent/talented?

Problem 3: How can we make sure corruption does not happen, and reach true meritocracy?

Problem 4: Should genetic traits such as intelligence, strength, and beauty only be rewarded, or acquired traits such as hard work should be too?

Part B: If it&#39;s possible, is it a good thing?

Let&#39;s say somehow, we get close to the idea of true meritocracy. But is this a good thing for a society? If you&#39;re good in something, you&#39;ll be rewarded. But people with average intelligence/capability will have many challenges. Maybe we can work on giving the &quot;average&quot; citizen a descent, livable life; but even then, is it moral?

Pros:

- Talentless rich people are given the same starting point as talented poor people, where the latter can shine.

- If hard work is rewarded too, then only you decide your fate. There is no excuse for poverty.

- If done correctly, social injustice rarely happens. Everyone gets what they &quot;deserve&quot;. Good people live well, average people live averagely, and bad people live badly.

Cons:

- &quot;Talentless&quot; people, whatever defines that, will live harshly. They&#39;re humans too.

- What happens to families&#39; legacies if there is no inheritance?

- The society needs constant monitoring and control, where corruption can happen easily.


The Supreme Court would likely uphold the 22nd Amendment, but Trump and the GOP could choose to ignore their ruling. This wouldn’t be the first time in history that a president has blatantly defied the Supreme Court. What do you think would happen in this scenario? Would this likely lead to other constitutional amendments being ignored? Could it spark a revolution or civil war against Trump’s America? Would law enforcement, the military, or state governments intervene to protect the Constitution?

If Donald Trump decided to run again in 2028, won a third term, and a hypothetical Republican majority certified the election, what would the repercussions be for ignoring the 22nd Amendment?


Democrats are often criticized for prioritizing decorum and civility in political discourse, especially when compared to the more confrontational approach often associated with Republicans. While this commitment to decorum aligns with their appeal to voters who value institutional norms and professional behavior, it raises the question of whether this strategy weakens their ability to energize their base or effectively counter aggressive political tactics. Are Democrats' efforts to "stay above the fray" helping their electability by appealing to moderates and independents, or does it hinder them by failing to inspire passionate support or adequately push back against opposition narratives?

Does Democrat's adherence to decorum hurt or favor their electability?

Democrats are often criticized for prioritizing decorum and civility in political discourse, especially when compared to the more confrontational approach often associated with Republicans. While this commitment to decorum aligns with their appeal to voters who value institutional norms and professional behavior, it raises the question of whether this strategy weakens their ability to energize their base or effectively counter aggressive political tactics. Are Democrats&#39; efforts to &quot;stay above the fray&quot; helping their electability by appealing to moderates and independents, or does it hinder them by failing to inspire passionate support or adequately push back against opposition narratives?


Donald Trump's early actions in his second term have sparked debate over their alignment with Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint he previously dismissed. Despite his campaign's disavowal of the Heritage Foundation's controversial plan, many of Trump's initial executive orders and policy moves closely mirror the proposals outlined in Project 2025. This raises questions about the extent to which his administration is influenced by the blueprint and whether his actions reflect a broader conservative agenda.

Both Bloomberg and Axios have created tracking checklists for the Project 2025 agenda, and the current administrations actions....

(Archive links in case the pages get removed)

Bloomberg: [https://archive.is/ow0gZ](https://archive.is/ow0gZ) (Archive  link in case it gets removed)

Axios: [https://archive.is/gC7Ua](https://archive.is/gC7Ua)

So, do Trumps early actions show that Project 2025 really was the "playbook" for his administration?

Do Trumps Early Actions Mirror the Project 2025 Plan He Once Dismissed?

Donald Trump&#39;s early actions in his second term have sparked debate over their alignment with Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint he previously dismissed. Despite his campaign&#39;s disavowal of the Heritage Foundation&#39;s controversial plan, many of Trump&#39;s initial executive orders and policy moves closely mirror the proposals outlined in Project 2025. This raises questions about the extent to which his administration is influenced by the blueprint and whether his actions reflect a broader conservative agenda.

Both Bloomberg and Axios have created tracking checklists for the Project 2025 agenda, and the current administrations actions....

(Archive links in case the pages get removed)

Bloomberg: https://archive.is/ow0gZ (Archive  link in case it gets removed)

Axios: https://archive.is/gC7Ua

So, do Trumps early actions show that Project 2025 really was the &quot;playbook&quot; for his administration?


Do you think J.D. Vance will have the same hold over republicans as Trump? Will Trump leaving office/dying be the end of the chaos or will project 2025 just keep trying? Im wondering if diehard Rs would still vote for Vance?

Looking forward, will J.D. Vance have the same hold as Trump Republicans?


Real question - what could Trump do at this point that would result in Congress impeaching and removing him from office?

I honestly can’t think of anything but found it interesting.

& yes I know this will not happen.

Bonus points if you don’t reference “shoot a man on 5th Avenue.”

What could trump actually do to get impeached (removed from office)?

Real question - what could Trump do at this point that would result in Congress impeaching and removing him from office?

I honestly can’t think of anything but found it interesting.

&amp; yes I know this will not happen.

Bonus points if you don’t reference “shoot a man on 5th Avenue.”


People usually bring up judges when they think of issues with senatorial consent but 1200 people need to be confirmed by the Senate. The most important besides judges would be the cabinet members. It can be useful to avoid a cascade of appointees and preventing the selection from being arbitrary, at least less arbitrary than it would be without this check, and sacking a secretary for disagreement or sticking to their views on what is legal is harder to pull off because you need a replacement, and a person who is a known sycophant is less likely to be able to be made a secretary in the first place given the potential of senatorial opposition, though not a guarantee either. Theory is the nominator bears responsibility for a good nominee being put forth, the senate is responsible for the rejection of a good candidate, and responsible for approval of a bad one without the ability to force a president to nominate anyone in particular.

As for reforms, I would usually think of some power for the minority to get information and to ask questions but ultimately let the majority vote. I would also think of transferring the power to the House, not Senate. Codification of some steps like a background check and the application submitted could be helpful, as could more disclosure of the process used by the president to choose who to nominate in the first place. Can you think of others?

Note this post isn't about improving the quality of the legislators or the head of government themselves via things like conflict of interest laws, that would be a related but separate issue.

With regards to cabinet selections, how useful do you think is Senatorial consent? Can it be improved?

People usually bring up judges when they think of issues with senatorial consent but 1200 people need to be confirmed by the Senate. The most important besides judges would be the cabinet members. It can be useful to avoid a cascade of appointees and preventing the selection from being arbitrary, at least less arbitrary than it would be without this check, and sacking a secretary for disagreement or sticking to their views on what is legal is harder to pull off because you need a replacement, and a person who is a known sycophant is less likely to be able to be made a secretary in the first place given the potential of senatorial opposition, though not a guarantee either. Theory is the nominator bears responsibility for a good nominee being put forth, the senate is responsible for the rejection of a good candidate, and responsible for approval of a bad one without the ability to force a president to nominate anyone in particular.

As for reforms, I would usually think of some power for the minority to get information and to ask questions but ultimately let the majority vote. I would also think of transferring the power to the House, not Senate. Codification of some steps like a background check and the application submitted could be helpful, as could more disclosure of the process used by the president to choose who to nominate in the first place. Can you think of others?

Note this post isn&#39;t about improving the quality of the legislators or the head of government themselves via things like conflict of interest laws, that would be a related but separate issue.


Since President Trump first came to power in 2016, he has made tongue-in-cheek comments about potentially extending his presidency beyond the current Constitutional limits. These comments go as far back as 2020 when he said that after he won the 2020 election, "[“And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years](https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/politics/donald-trump-third-term-2024/index.html)". More recently, after winning the 2024 election [he spoke to GOP Congressmen and stated that he would run again in 2028 if they were able to find a legal way to do it](https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/4991169-trump-said-he-cant-run-in-2028-unless-the-gop-figures-something-out-could-that-happen/).

Several members of the President's inner circle, such as Steve Bannon, [have also advocated for this](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-third-term-2028-steve-bannon-constitution-2001185).

This discussion has finally culminated in a proposal to amend the Constitution, introduced this week by Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN). [The amendment would alter the language of the Constitution so that a president who has not yet served two *consecutive* terms, can continue running for president](https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-proposes-amending-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term). This would allow Trump to run in 2028 as he had two terms already but they were non-consecutive. Conversely, someone like Clinton, Bush or Obama would not qualify to run again since they served two consecutive terms.

The amendment is largely considered to be an extreme long shot that has no chance of winning support from Republicans, let alone Democrats, and will likely die in the House. However, the increasing rhetoric around a possible third term leads to the question of whether President Trump would or could try explore options to stay in office from 2028 onwards. What avenues are available for him to do this? If he does, what political response would he receive from the federal bureaucracy, the military, fellow Republicans, Democrats, and the individual states?

An amendment has been introduced in the House of Representatives to allow President Trump to run for a third term. Could he actually attempt to do this? What would be the legal and political ramifications?

Since President Trump first came to power in 2016, he has made tongue-in-cheek comments about potentially extending his presidency beyond the current Constitutional limits. These comments go as far back as 2020 when he said that after he won the 2020 election, &quot;“And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years&quot;. More recently, after winning the 2024 election he spoke to GOP Congressmen and stated that he would run again in 2028 if they were able to find a legal way to do it.

Several members of the President&#39;s inner circle, such as Steve Bannon, have also advocated for this.

This discussion has finally culminated in a proposal to amend the Constitution, introduced this week by Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN). The amendment would alter the language of the Constitution so that a president who has not yet served two consecutive terms, can continue running for president. This would allow Trump to run in 2028 as he had two terms already but they were non-consecutive. Conversely, someone like Clinton, Bush or Obama would not qualify to run again since they served two consecutive terms.

The amendment is largely considered to be an extreme long shot that has no chance of winning support from Republicans, let alone Democrats, and will likely die in the House. However, the increasing rhetoric around a possible third term leads to the question of whether President Trump would or could try explore options to stay in office from 2028 onwards. What avenues are available for him to do this? If he does, what political response would he receive from the federal bureaucracy, the military, fellow Republicans, Democrats, and the individual states?


Imagine it’s proven that Greenland contains multi-trillion-dollar worth of mineral resources under it's ICE, and the USA decides to forcibly take control of the island from Denmark. How would Denmark and Europe realistically respond?

Given the U.S.’s overwhelming military and economic power, would Denmark have any viable means of resistance, or would it be forced to accept the situation? How would European nations react—would they condemn the U.S. publicly but ultimately overlook the aggression due to their dependence on American military support and economic relations? Could Europe impose meaningful sanctions or take military action, or would they have to accept the new geopolitical reality?

What if the U.S. Took Greenland by Force Over Potential Trillion-Dollar Resources? How Would Denmark and Europe Respond?

Imagine it’s proven that Greenland contains multi-trillion-dollar worth of mineral resources under it&#39;s ICE, and the USA decides to forcibly take control of the island from Denmark. How would Denmark and Europe realistically respond?

Given the U.S.’s overwhelming military and economic power, would Denmark have any viable means of resistance, or would it be forced to accept the situation? How would European nations react—would they condemn the U.S. publicly but ultimately overlook the aggression due to their dependence on American military support and economic relations? Could Europe impose meaningful sanctions or take military action, or would they have to accept the new geopolitical reality?


**Who are we dismissing now that could end up surprising us?** I have been fascinated by how Trump’s campaign that was initially dismissed became a movement that reshaped the GOP. I can't help but wonder if a similar shift could happen again, for example on the Democratic side. Are there any candidates or emerging movements you think could pull that off? I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Although Donald Trump had contemplated running for president for decades, his 2016 campaign was initially dismissed as a joke. Are there any current figures whose political aspirations seem unlikely or laughable now but could ultimately gain the appeal to win in the future?

Who are we dismissing now that could end up surprising us? I have been fascinated by how Trump’s campaign that was initially dismissed became a movement that reshaped the GOP. I can&#39;t help but wonder if a similar shift could happen again, for example on the Democratic side. Are there any candidates or emerging movements you think could pull that off? I&#39;d love to hear your thoughts!


Losing the 2020 election might have been a blessing in disguise for Trump and MAGA, as they are as powerful as ever in the GOP and the country. The 2020 election was closer than expected, and if Trump had won 100,000 more votes in four swing states, he would have won a second consecutive term.

When Trump unexpectedly won in 2016, he and the MAGA movement were relatively weak within the GOP and had no plan for government. Therefore, the GOP establishment subcontracted the cabinet, many legislative proposals, and judicial nominees. Trump’s first cabinet included Mike Pompeo, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, and John Bolton. Paul Ryan drafted the laws that Trump enacted, such as the tax cuts. Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society handpicked the judicial nominees.

If Trump had won in 2020, there would have been no January 6 moment where those Republicans disloyal to Trump, such as Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, as well as the other never-Trumpers, were excommunicated from the party. This would mean that MAGA's influence in the GOP had some opposition. Additionally, Trump would not have been under criminal investigation in several jurisdictions which fired up the base. More importantly, Trump had four years to plan for government this time; see Project 2025 and Agenda 47.

Additionally, Trump would have presided over the post-COVID inflation surge; hence, the GOP may have struggled in 2022 and lost the presidency in 2024 (Trump would have been term-limited hence the GOP nominee would have been someone else). This may have been the moment when the establishment Republicans took back control of their party from MAGA.

Now, the GOP is firmly under Trump’s and MAGA's control. Additionally, Trump’s ban on social media after January 6 indirectly led to Musk buying Twitter. Big tech has shifted in favour of Trump, which may not have happened if Trump had won in 2020.

So, to what extent was losing in 2020 a blessing in disguise to Trump and the MAGA movement?

To what extent was losing in 2020 a blessing in disguise for Trump and MAGA?

Losing the 2020 election might have been a blessing in disguise for Trump and MAGA, as they are as powerful as ever in the GOP and the country. The 2020 election was closer than expected, and if Trump had won 100,000 more votes in four swing states, he would have won a second consecutive term.

When Trump unexpectedly won in 2016, he and the MAGA movement were relatively weak within the GOP and had no plan for government. Therefore, the GOP establishment subcontracted the cabinet, many legislative proposals, and judicial nominees. Trump’s first cabinet included Mike Pompeo, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, and John Bolton. Paul Ryan drafted the laws that Trump enacted, such as the tax cuts. Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society handpicked the judicial nominees.

If Trump had won in 2020, there would have been no January 6 moment where those Republicans disloyal to Trump, such as Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, as well as the other never-Trumpers, were excommunicated from the party. This would mean that MAGA&#39;s influence in the GOP had some opposition. Additionally, Trump would not have been under criminal investigation in several jurisdictions which fired up the base. More importantly, Trump had four years to plan for government this time; see Project 2025 and Agenda 47.

Additionally, Trump would have presided over the post-COVID inflation surge; hence, the GOP may have struggled in 2022 and lost the presidency in 2024 (Trump would have been term-limited hence the GOP nominee would have been someone else). This may have been the moment when the establishment Republicans took back control of their party from MAGA.

Now, the GOP is firmly under Trump’s and MAGA&#39;s control. Additionally, Trump’s ban on social media after January 6 indirectly led to Musk buying Twitter. Big tech has shifted in favour of Trump, which may not have happened if Trump had won in 2020.

So, to what extent was losing in 2020 a blessing in disguise to Trump and the MAGA movement?


I was just scrolling thru my feed and this random sub popped up and then I saw the post and then I got curious of the comment section (mistake I know) and I saw this one person using the word "incel" and alot of left wingers don't actually know what the word means but they claim they do so I wanted to know if they did know and we'll....it turns out liberals and the left don't really know what there talking about and just get angry when you ask them questions. The ss of the conversation is on my profile if you are interested or click the link

Do liberals and the left wing party actually know what incel means?? I am generally interested in knowing if they do know or not

I was just scrolling thru my feed and this random sub popped up and then I saw the post and then I got curious of the comment section (mistake I know) and I saw this one person using the word &quot;incel&quot; and alot of left wingers don&#39;t actually know what the word means but they claim they do so I wanted to know if they did know and we&#39;ll....it turns out liberals and the left don&#39;t really know what there talking about and just get angry when you ask them questions. The ss of the conversation is on my profile if you are interested or click the link


I’ve never been banned on anything more in my life, than Reddit. I commented that some protesters look like paid actors. Banned me for good. This is the world they wanted us to endure. Pathetic

Reddit is controlled by the Left.


This guy is a MAGA Republican.  He will need what ever support he can get.  The city sub is exploding in dismay, and already bagging on him.  He is despised by Liberals because of his refusal to follow many of Newsom's illegal mandates, as well as his support for President Trump.

Seen on the Riverside, CA Sub, New Candidate for Governor, Sheriff Chad Bianco

This guy is a MAGA Republican.  He will need what ever support he can get.  The city sub is exploding in dismay, and already bagging on him.  He is despised by Liberals because of his refusal to follow many of Newsom&#39;s illegal mandates, as well as his support for President Trump.


DOGE Stops $10M in Taxpayer Funds from Paying for Circumcisions in Mozambique


Due to Lack of Business, NGO-Run San Diego Migrant Shelter Closes Its Doors


Trump Should Cancel the Diversity Visa Program


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y3a5hlnLdzU?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Dem Donors Turn Off Money Tap For Left-Wing Activist Groups As Party Remains In Disarray"></iframe>


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z-Eebv__T58?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="HATE TO SEE IT, Meltdown from MSNBC Host #trump"></iframe>


Thoughts on this article? Inside the Trump administration’s error-plagued federal firing spree


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xIemeLWpOXg?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Trump Pressures Romania on Tate Brothers as Musk’s DOGE Uncovers Government Fraud | News Wrap Up"></iframe>


Trump demands 50% of Ukraine’s revenues from critical minerals, oil and gas, ports and infrastructure: report


Posted random link so I could just type, but I'm honestly tired of people crying over stupid bullshit like the Gulf of America. It's just a dumb thing that doesn't really hold any weight imo. All these protests, all these rallies are for what? Protesting a government doing it's fucking job? Or to hide the fact your Biden administration and democratic party was a fucking scandalous and treasonous party that nearly brought America to the brink of destruction.

Everyone just wants a reason to be angry nowdays, a reason to fight and a reason to feel like they have a calling to fight some system because it hurts their feelings. What the fuck has America become these last 4 years..

Rant 01

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3UiKY_e3qDQ?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Black Mesa - We&#39;ve Got Hostiles (remix)"></iframe>

Black Mesa - We've Got Hostiles (remix)

Posted random link so I could just type, but I&#39;m honestly tired of people crying over stupid bullshit like the Gulf of America. It&#39;s just a dumb thing that doesn&#39;t really hold any weight imo. All these protests, all these rallies are for what? Protesting a government doing it&#39;s fucking job? Or to hide the fact your Biden administration and democratic party was a fucking scandalous and treasonous party that nearly brought America to the brink of destruction.

Everyone just wants a reason to be angry nowdays, a reason to fight and a reason to feel like they have a calling to fight some system because it hurts their feelings. What the fuck has America become these last 4 years..

Black Mesa - We've Got Hostiles (remix)


Presidents’ Day Scorecard: How’s Trump Stacking Up To His Predecessors?


VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Mythologies about Musk


Trump Will No Longer Allow Men To Compete In Women's Sports

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6qtRYDf1EWE?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Trump Will No Longer Allow Men To Compete In Women&#39;s Sports"></iframe>


Chicago protests


REPORT: 2023 Chinese Spy Balloon Was Loaded With American Technology


Said "by Valentine's day" then "by the end of the weekend." Been refreshing periodically for the past few days and it's finally updated to show it!

Doge Savings Posted!

Said &quot;by Valentine&#39;s day&quot; then &quot;by the end of the weekend.&quot; Been refreshing periodically for the past few days and it&#39;s finally updated to show it!


Trump’s Border Czar Marks Presidents’ Day With Statistic That Puts Biden Admin To Shame


Woke Activists Screaming at City Council Isn’t the Win You Think It Is

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c4Ma0z1ad7I?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="What Is Happening To America..."></iframe>

What Is Happening To America...

What Is Happening To America...


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mTaaA10bP5c?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="VP JD Vance Fires Back at Far-Left Reporter Mehdi Hasan Who Attempts to School Him on Free Speech"></iframe>


JD Vance Rips Insane '60 Minutes' Segment Promoting "Orwellian" Speech Police In Germany

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GN-gFdCgiT8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="JD Vance Rips Insane &#39;60 Minutes&#39; Segment Promoting &quot;Orwellian&quot; Speech Police In Germany"></iframe>


Deranged Maniac Fires Off Over 17 Memes In Crowded German Shopping Mall


Hello, Lithuanian here!

Obviously, this is just an unconfirmed rumour, but there's been some talk about the potential withdrawal of US troops from the Baltic region.

Lithuanians, along with other Baltic nations, remain firmly committed to NATO and our mutual agreements with the US. Recent discussions with Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth have been positive. That said, many of us are uneasy about the current state of the world order as it seems to be crumbling.

I'm hoping to step out of my echo chamber and hear different perspectives. Would you support US troops leaving Baltic States? Or do you believe their presence is essential for our vulnerable region?

Rumor: US troops leaving Baltic States. What do Republicans think?

Hello, Lithuanian here!

Obviously, this is just an unconfirmed rumour, but there&#39;s been some talk about the potential withdrawal of US troops from the Baltic region.

Lithuanians, along with other Baltic nations, remain firmly committed to NATO and our mutual agreements with the US. Recent discussions with Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth have been positive. That said, many of us are uneasy about the current state of the world order as it seems to be crumbling.

I&#39;m hoping to step out of my echo chamber and hear different perspectives. Would you support US troops leaving Baltic States? Or do you believe their presence is essential for our vulnerable region?


Delta Air Lines flight upside-down after crash leaves multiple injured at Toronto Pearson International Airport

How long till they blame Trump?


Vote for Trump fired by


Since the White House IS acting outside of constitution authority ...


Came across this post when I checked my email and Reddit had suggested it. Posted my opinion and immediately down voted with no discourse.

The left and their affinity for cancel culture is beyond comprehension. I can't be only person tired of racist, bigot liberals.

Cancelled for an opinion

Came across this post when I checked my email and Reddit had suggested it. Posted my opinion and immediately down voted with no discourse.

The left and their affinity for cancel culture is beyond comprehension. I can&#39;t be only person tired of racist, bigot liberals.


Nolte: Disgraced ’60 Minutes’ Misleads Viewers on USAID Staff Reductions


Jobs Report Shows Skyrocketing Unemployment Among Lizard People


Speaker Johnson spills the tea Joe has been signing executive orders without knowing


Presidents' Day 2025. The future looks bright.


Eric Swalwell Reaches Peak of TDS-Mountain, Blames Small Plane Crash on Trump


DOGE Investigating Potential Social Security Fraud -- Millions Aged 130+ on Rolls


Al Sharpton Asks Maybe the DUMBEST Question Ever About Our Founders and Ted Cruz's Answer is PERFECTION


The Morning Briefing: Trump's Genius for Trolling the Dems Just Keeps Getting Better


JD Vance rips 'Orwellian' German prosecutors for 'criminalizing speech,' says it will hamper Europe-US relations


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rG6pDpv0Nik?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="NYC Mayor SHUTS DOWN Accusations from Far Left #trump"></iframe>


Hey guys genuine question here that I wasn’t allowed to post in r/askconservatives , probably due to their sub being spammed with Ukraine and Trump related questions and assumed I was a troll or something. Anyways I’m genuinely curious and want to know what my fellow Conservatives think. What’s the point of Trump negotiating a peace treaty in Ukraine if he doesn’t plan on America doing anything in any case? You would assume if America’s negotiating we’d be somewhat involved be it with sending troops to help administer a neutral zone or to guarantee Ukraine post-war but Trump has stated he does not intend for America do either or increase aid for Ukraine if the deal fails. If this is the case why even bother negotiating if we’re not going to get involved no matter the outcome? For the sake of being world-police? Also why should Ukraine accept any deal they view unfavorable now if they know the U.S. won’t support them even if they did sign the deal and why would Russia accept a deal if they know America won’t aid Ukraine anymore even if they don’t end the war? I just don’t see any point in Trump negotiating if America doesn’t have any involvement on the outcome, either just pull out and let them deal with it or actually have America involve itself in the outcome.

Edit: added a random url because apparently we need attachments even if it’s a discussion post, don’t know what’s that’s about

Why bother negotiating an Ukraine treaty if we won’t be involved no matter the outcome.


Nissan Could Move Production Out of Mexico over Trump Tariffs


Elon Musk ‘Cracked The Code’ For Defeating The ‘Deep State,’ Speaker Johnson Says


Wow this guy just shared the real story EPIC

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uFPXf6mLUAM?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Elon Musk is Sherlock Holmes - Movie Trailer Parody featuring Donald Trump&#39;s Detective"></iframe>

Elon Musk is Sherlock Holmes - Movie Trailer Parody featuring Donald Trump's Detective


Reddit keeps telling me that Trump supporters have been regretting their vote for President Trump. Do you agree with Reddit or do you think Reddit has been brigaded with retard bots?

So far I been leaning towards the latter :/

Does anyone here regret voting for President Trump?


I've been on board with cuts and investigation the Trump administration has been doing.. but I'm having a hard time understanding how this one is helpful. I'm heartily in favor of funding scientific research. This is limiting lab and equipment expenditures, a necessary part of that research.

I'm not saying there aren't issues with the NIH that should be addressed. For one, there's loads of studies that we fund and the results arent made public. Publicly funded research should be required to be published. But this isn't addressing that.

If there's corruption, or conflict of interest issues, wouldn't requiring greater transpiracy of funds be the solution? And firing those that abuse it? Not this?

If its that we don't want to waste money on pointless studies, wouldn't a crack down and more clarified policy on what research can be funded be the solution?

The only other argument I've seen is that universities are cutting themselves a portion of this money. But do we know that, and if so, how? I've seen a couple of comments on YouTube videos from people allegedly in university administration positions saying the funds from the grants are razor thin and well accounted for. Not a very official source, I know -- where else can I look into that?

Does anyone have a good argument in favor of this?

Is this really a justifiable cut?

I&#39;ve been on board with cuts and investigation the Trump administration has been doing.. but I&#39;m having a hard time understanding how this one is helpful. I&#39;m heartily in favor of funding scientific research. This is limiting lab and equipment expenditures, a necessary part of that research.

I&#39;m not saying there aren&#39;t issues with the NIH that should be addressed. For one, there&#39;s loads of studies that we fund and the results arent made public. Publicly funded research should be required to be published. But this isn&#39;t addressing that.

If there&#39;s corruption, or conflict of interest issues, wouldn&#39;t requiring greater transpiracy of funds be the solution? And firing those that abuse it? Not this?

If its that we don&#39;t want to waste money on pointless studies, wouldn&#39;t a crack down and more clarified policy on what research can be funded be the solution?

The only other argument I&#39;ve seen is that universities are cutting themselves a portion of this money. But do we know that, and if so, how? I&#39;ve seen a couple of comments on YouTube videos from people allegedly in university administration positions saying the funds from the grants are razor thin and well accounted for. Not a very official source, I know -- where else can I look into that?

Does anyone have a good argument in favor of this?


We have 2 new rules that may be consolidated or adjusted. You'll have to excuse my boomerishness, but with New Reddit and some other changes (I still prefer Old Reddit) some of what we used to do has shifted. Some of these thing I think can be coded, but I am learning how. Again, forgive my ignorance.

Anyway, one major problem that we have had in the past is that videos, text posts, and image posts, if unchecked, were often troll posts that not only meant to mock us, but also intended to get us shut down. If some bad actors on alt accounts created racist memes to throw on our sub and we weren't diligent enough in taking them down, the sub could get shut down.

That is why we only allowed article posts from the subs inception, and it remained an unspoken rule. But things started shifting and there were little changes to posts that reddit made, and then new reddit happened and we mods just didn't adjust to the times perhaps? That's my excuse anyway.

People started posting links in text posts, which I thought was a mistake and we tried to correct it, but it was just a pain in the ass. They started posting text commentary under articles, which never used to happen.

So the issue is thus: too little oversight into posts leads to

* Shit posts (And I mean shit)
* Trolls having too easy a time to troll
* Bad actors using bad posts to try and get us shut down or promote brigading that just ruins the experience of our users.

These new rules are to force commentary where it belongs, in the comment section. If you want to make a comment about your article, just make it in the comment section, don't change the title to comment on an article, and don't comment on the article in any body section (I think I changed that so you won't be able to).

**Forcing the commentary into the comment section allows you users to protect from the problems that that causes while allowing for the** ***same*** **commentary**. So do not complain about free speech on this front. Protestors have to follow rules, too, they are supposed to get permits, they are not allowed to just disrupt everything... at least anywhere other than blue cities.

This also prevents an annoying trend I've been seeing where users post a link to Google. Not a Google article. Not some app on Google to comment on the app in some relevant way, just posting a link to Google so that they can then make a comment in what becomes a text post.

Hopefully I have removed that ability so the rule is moot.

We also hope to allow more things like text posts, video posts, and other posts. But that requires moderation. I can't tell you how many times such posts in the past were used to troll, brigade, and try to hurt us. An innocuous photo of Trump and the First Lady one posted here had a photoshopped silhouette of the twin towers on fire in the patter of Melania's dress or Trump's tie (I forget which). It was a troll post.

There may be setting changes to do some of this automatically (and I think there are, but I'm new to this part of moderating) so the rule doesn't even matter because it won't be possible to break these rules.

That said, I would also like you to know WHY we limit the kinds of posts we allow.

New Rules and Changes - And Brief Explanations

We have 2 new rules that may be consolidated or adjusted. You&#39;ll have to excuse my boomerishness, but with New Reddit and some other changes (I still prefer Old Reddit) some of what we used to do has shifted. Some of these thing I think can be coded, but I am learning how. Again, forgive my ignorance.

Anyway, one major problem that we have had in the past is that videos, text posts, and image posts, if unchecked, were often troll posts that not only meant to mock us, but also intended to get us shut down. If some bad actors on alt accounts created racist memes to throw on our sub and we weren&#39;t diligent enough in taking them down, the sub could get shut down.

That is why we only allowed article posts from the subs inception, and it remained an unspoken rule. But things started shifting and there were little changes to posts that reddit made, and then new reddit happened and we mods just didn&#39;t adjust to the times perhaps? That&#39;s my excuse anyway.

People started posting links in text posts, which I thought was a mistake and we tried to correct it, but it was just a pain in the ass. They started posting text commentary under articles, which never used to happen.

So the issue is thus: too little oversight into posts leads to

Shit posts (And I mean shit)

Trolls having too easy a time to troll

Bad actors using bad posts to try and get us shut down or promote brigading that just ruins the experience of our users.

These new rules are to force commentary where it belongs, in the comment section. If you want to make a comment about your article, just make it in the comment section, don&#39;t change the title to comment on an article, and don&#39;t comment on the article in any body section (I think I changed that so you won&#39;t be able to).

Forcing the commentary into the comment section allows you users to protect from the problems that that causes while allowing for the same commentary. So do not complain about free speech on this front. Protestors have to follow rules, too, they are supposed to get permits, they are not allowed to just disrupt everything... at least anywhere other than blue cities.

This also prevents an annoying trend I&#39;ve been seeing where users post a link to Google. Not a Google article. Not some app on Google to comment on the app in some relevant way, just posting a link to Google so that they can then make a comment in what becomes a text post.

Hopefully I have removed that ability so the rule is moot.

We also hope to allow more things like text posts, video posts, and other posts. But that requires moderation. I can&#39;t tell you how many times such posts in the past were used to troll, brigade, and try to hurt us. An innocuous photo of Trump and the First Lady one posted here had a photoshopped silhouette of the twin towers on fire in the patter of Melania&#39;s dress or Trump&#39;s tie (I forget which). It was a troll post.

There may be setting changes to do some of this automatically (and I think there are, but I&#39;m new to this part of moderating) so the rule doesn&#39;t even matter because it won&#39;t be possible to break these rules.

That said, I would also like you to know WHY we limit the kinds of posts we allow.


Another Tesla Protest


Kevin Hassett says Trump has "multifaceted plan" to end inflation

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uCWl2C9bxcI?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Kevin Hassett says Trump has &quot;multifaceted plan&quot; to end inflation"></iframe>


Summary:  View help for Summary We tested the fixity of political preferences of 136 healthy males during the 2011 U.S. presidential election season by administering synthetic testosterone or placebo to participants who had identified the strength of their political affiliation. Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19% higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party (p=0.015). When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12% (p=.01) and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president (p < 0.001).  Our results demonstrate that testosterone induces a “red shift" among weakly-affiliated Democrats.  This effect was associated with improved mood.  No effects were found of testosterone administration for strongly affiliated Democrats or strong or weak Republicans.  Our findings provide evidence that neuroactive hormones affect political preferences.

Testosterone given to democratic voters

Summary:  View help for Summary We tested the fixity of political preferences of 136 healthy males during the 2011 U.S. presidential election season by administering synthetic testosterone or placebo to participants who had identified the strength of their political affiliation. Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19% higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party (p=0.015). When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12% (p=.01) and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president (p &lt; 0.001).  Our results demonstrate that testosterone induces a “red shift&quot; among weakly-affiliated Democrats.  This effect was associated with improved mood.  No effects were found of testosterone administration for strongly affiliated Democrats or strong or weak Republicans.  Our findings provide evidence that neuroactive hormones affect political preferences.


USAID Faces Scrutiny Over Leftist Ties, GOP Targets Border Crime, FAA, & Immigration | News Wrap Up

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nq7siMNthEg?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="USAID Faces Scrutiny Over Leftist Ties, GOP Targets Border Crime, FAA, &amp; Immigration | News Wrap Up"></iframe>


So I starting using Reddit like consistently a couple of months ago like right after the election and I was surprised to see just how liberal the app was. Like every general sub is literally just anti trump stuff and liberals melting down in every sub. Like even completely unrelated posts ppl in the comments will somehow bring trump up. Will this calm down at all over his term or are they gonna whine about this the whole time?

Will the super liberal constant politics obsession end at all during trumps presidency


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Khhn2_rQSOw?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Border Czar Tom Homan Talks to Maria Bartiromo on AOC’s Efforts to Impede Law Enforcement"></iframe>


Thoughts on this article? Farmers report missing Agriculture Department money after funding freeze


Why DEI is bad, a different perspective.

Share This With Your Liberal Friends

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PbbPBjXDr-k?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="The Dark Side of DEI: How Diversity Policies Are Failing Us (Episode 5)"></iframe>


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YF9OV1sq3b4?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="RFK is Right: The Country is Still Suffering from Biden’s Pandemic Response"></iframe>


Trump attends the Daytona 500 and says the spirit of NASCAR will ‘fuel America’s Golden Age’


Human Wet Blanket Neil deGrasse Tyson Says an Asteroid Might Hit Earth So We Can't Stop Funding Science


In the onboarding email, last bullet-point was underlined and bold, “If you have received your COVID vaccine, please bring your card”.

Also said in 2 previous HR emails, they mentioned that being vaccinated ‘’is it required but we would love to have your card on file if you have it”.

…Am I walking into the lion’s den? How would you handle this if/when asked? I believe I’m meeting with the immunization rep and the end of the day tomorrow. Job is in healthcare.

New job asking for proof of COVID vaccination


AP Refuses to Use 'Gulf of America' Despite Updating Other Geographical Terms


Follow @snowflakerepellent #fjb #truth #snowflakerepellent #freedome #woke # #trump #whitehouse #donaldtrump #trumptrain #makeamericagreatagain #meme #memes  #keepamericagreat #kag2020 #maga2020 #trump2020 #thedonald #realdonaldtrump #donaldtrumpjr #politics #politicalmemes #politics #americafirst #whitehouse #presidenttrump #republican #conservative #potus  #maga #kag

Snowflakerepellent on Instagram: "A Battle on Ice: Canada and the USA face off for hockey supremacy! 🇨🇦 vs 🇺🇸 the 51st State lost that battle 🤣"


NASCAR fans cheer as Trump arrives for Daytona 500 in Air Force One


When Canadians Boo the national anthem at the hockey game , we send in the squad.

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IUbn5ss8j9c?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="The Hansons Play Dirty - Slap Shot (6/10) Movie CLIP (1977) HD"></iframe>


Turns out just firing people at random without much concern as to what they do is a really bad idea.

Trump trying to unfire people


Canadian Hockey Fans Just Learned FAFO the Hard Way


SUREFIRE Way To Destroy Democracy

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4h2SqoPKcFc?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="SUREFIRE Way To Destroy Democracy"></iframe>

SUREFIRE Way To Destroy Democracy

SUREFIRE Way To Destroy Democracy


Just... why?


Trump assigns oil and gas advocate from Colorado to oversee public lands.


Trump Admin Tells Europeans to List Troops Available for Ukraine


[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the [content policy](/help/contentpolicy). ]

[ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]


Republican Nominee For 2028 Presidential Election 2025 Poll


Trump Effect: E.U. Countries Launch Rushed Summit on Ukraine, European Security


Things Didn't Turn Out Well for Team Canada After the Star-Spangled Banner Got Booed Last Night


Hogg at the Trough: Dem’s Vice Chair Reportedly Using New Position to Gorge Himself on DNC Dollars


Pennsylvania Democrat accuses the Trump administration of being "white supremacist"


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bf8AHtdbzS4?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="WATCH Tom Homan STRONGLY DISAGREE With Mayor Adams"></iframe>


Tom Homan Contacts Federal Prosecutors Over AOC Helping Illegal Aliens Avoid ICE


RFK Jr. Is Already Taking Aim at Antidepressants, mental health is wrong


I covered leftist talking points in the last announcements (and I'll take that down once it seems the leftists, trolls, and bots have abated for the time being), but I wanted to discuss what it means to break our anti-Republican rule, along with our Reagan's 11th Commandment rule... because they are basically the same rule.

I'm going to go through some common complaints we get from banned users and how to avoid being banned like those users.

-**I was just stating a fact. What, FACTS aren't allowed anymore??**

Facts are allowed. They have always been allowed and even encouraged. But if your fact is laced with commentary, then it is not longer "just a fact". Here are some examples.

* **Fact**: The sky is blue.

* **What gets you banned**: The sky is blue, you fucking fascist.

Take note, because many do not notice the subtle difference between these two comments. Many who write something similar to the second comment will frequently in modmail say "I was just stating a fact!" This is so common, it's not funny.

Here's another one:

* **Fact**: Musk and Trump are uncovering a lot of fraud. While mistakes are being made, they are also being corrected, and Musk only has the power to report findings, not make final decisions.

* **What will get you banned**: Musk and Trump, man... these guys are running amok. I'm deeply concerned about how Musk is just firing people.

Do you see the difference? One is a fact, one is commentary and kind of half fact and half untruth. Many users do not see the difference. Be a user who does.

-**Just because I don't suck Trump's dick means I'm anti-Republican! I have been registered Republican for [X number of] years!**

This is one we get a lot. You must understand that we are a large umbrella. There are MAGA Republicans. There are Trump supporters who love Trump for this time in history but want to see leadership arise that is a bit more conventional as a leader and a bit easier for moderates to swallow. There are Republicans who absolutely hate the current president and the direction of the party.

We don't care what category you fall under. What we care about is that you show deference to fellow party members.

If you don't like the memes of Trump, fine, but don't trash people who do. And if you think it makes us look bad, I would just point out that the left has called us racists and bigots for literally decades and we took it in stride. They memed us in the media constantly before memes were even a thing.The character assassination attempts they did to Trump, they also did to Romney, to McCain, to Bush Jr., to Bush Sr., they accused Clarence Thomas of rape just like Kavanaugh. This is the left's M.O. and it has been for longer than I've been alive, arguably since before the Civil War.

You don't have to like the memes President Trump posts or that we on the right are making and posting. I don't particularly like them myself. But to trash fellow Republicans for it, without giving any understanding to the fact that the left have memed us and called us racists and bigots for decades, is disrespectful to your fellow Republicans.

You can argue it makes us look bad. But do so with respect.

* **What's acceptable**: I don't like this meme and doesn't think it helps our cause, but I can see why people find it funny and find it to be a valid answer to what the left has done to us for decades.

* **What's not acceptable**: The MAGA's who suck Trump's dick love this shit, but it makes us look bad.

*I would say to all the users who worry about looking bad to the left*: I know you care about looking bad to the left, but how about looking bad to your fellow party? Comments like the one just above make YOU look bad to ME and many of your fellow Republicans.

Show respect.

-**[Insert Prominent Republican's Name] is a piece of shit! He's a traitor to the party!**

I am a Christian first, a member of my family second, an American third, and a Republican lower on the list. I hope all of your have a similar hierarchy. Political parties are not the be-all and end-all.

Political parties are tools to pool votes in a coalition to create a platform that a large number of people with many varying views can get behind and vote for in the face of another party that is doing the same with views we largely disagree with. They have value in the situations, but I kind of hate that they exist.

That said, being a sub FOR the party (although we are not affiliated with the GOP in any official capacity, we are just fellow Republicans), we do need to show deference to the party, we need to respect the party, we need to respect the umbrella, and we need to respect the individuals in the party.

I am not a fan of Romney but I respect that he is a Republican. So if I criticize him, I might have a little fun, but I won't just trash him. **Keep in mind, would you rather the left win, or have a [insert Republican you don't like]?** In my case, I'd rather have a Romney than an Obama.

* **What is acceptable**: Romney doesn't feel all that Republican to me these days and I really don't like how he keeps breaking from Republicans on so many issues, to the point I'd call him a RINO. But he's a strong business man and I'd take him over Obama any day.

* **What is not**: Fuck that loser Romney. He's a RINO piece of shit. I don't trust him.

Do you see the difference? One way criticizes while showing solidarity with the party, the other way is making it difficult to have any solidarity because it's so disrespectful.

We need solidarity. That does not mean we accept "traitors" if indeed we have any, but that does mean that we do not treat our fellow Republicans like crap. We don't throw them to the wolves unless it is clear we must. We don't cast them aside unless the allegations against them are credible. If they are indeed a RINO, show the receipts, but be respectful.

Matt Gaetz is a prime example. The right thing to do was to cut ties with him, but not before allegations were credible enough (especially knowing the left has made so many false accusations before). And also it should be done with the understanding that a lot of senators and congressman of all parties have likely been in a similar situation but just haven't been caught. He shouldn't have done what he seems to have done and it's inexcusable, but it also seems like a political targeting. Both of those things can be true at the same time.

We don't jump down a Republican's throat at the first accusation of impropriety, we let the facts come out and then deal with it appropriately. Getting hysterical about it from the first moment would lead to us not having Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh on the bench. We wouldn't have Trump. And think about how many it worked on. It worked on Romney, it worked on Bork (look him up), it worked on so many others. This is the left's MO. They tried to get rid of Hegseth because of a tattoo and baby clothes. Don't buy their hysterics, let the facts come out.

I hope this clears things up.

Clarification on what Anti-Republican means - Also just some tips on being decent.

I covered leftist talking points in the last announcements (and I&#39;ll take that down once it seems the leftists, trolls, and bots have abated for the time being), but I wanted to discuss what it means to break our anti-Republican rule, along with our Reagan&#39;s 11th Commandment rule... because they are basically the same rule.

I&#39;m going to go through some common complaints we get from banned users and how to avoid being banned like those users.

-I was just stating a fact. What, FACTS aren&#39;t allowed anymore??

Facts are allowed. They have always been allowed and even encouraged. But if your fact is laced with commentary, then it is not longer &quot;just a fact&quot;. Here are some examples.

Fact: The sky is blue.

What gets you banned: The sky is blue, you fucking fascist.

Take note, because many do not notice the subtle difference between these two comments. Many who write something similar to the second comment will frequently in modmail say &quot;I was just stating a fact!&quot; This is so common, it&#39;s not funny.

Here&#39;s another one:

Fact: Musk and Trump are uncovering a lot of fraud. While mistakes are being made, they are also being corrected, and Musk only has the power to report findings, not make final decisions.

What will get you banned: Musk and Trump, man... these guys are running amok. I&#39;m deeply concerned about how Musk is just firing people.

Do you see the difference? One is a fact, one is commentary and kind of half fact and half untruth. Many users do not see the difference. Be a user who does.

-Just because I don&#39;t suck Trump&#39;s dick means I&#39;m anti-Republican! I have been registered Republican for [X number of] years!

This is one we get a lot. You must understand that we are a large umbrella. There are MAGA Republicans. There are Trump supporters who love Trump for this time in history but want to see leadership arise that is a bit more conventional as a leader and a bit easier for moderates to swallow. There are Republicans who absolutely hate the current president and the direction of the party.

We don&#39;t care what category you fall under. What we care about is that you show deference to fellow party members.

If you don&#39;t like the memes of Trump, fine, but don&#39;t trash people who do. And if you think it makes us look bad, I would just point out that the left has called us racists and bigots for literally decades and we took it in stride. They memed us in the media constantly before memes were even a thing.The character assassination attempts they did to Trump, they also did to Romney, to McCain, to Bush Jr., to Bush Sr., they accused Clarence Thomas of rape just like Kavanaugh. This is the left&#39;s M.O. and it has been for longer than I&#39;ve been alive, arguably since before the Civil War.

You don&#39;t have to like the memes President Trump posts or that we on the right are making and posting. I don&#39;t particularly like them myself. But to trash fellow Republicans for it, without giving any understanding to the fact that the left have memed us and called us racists and bigots for decades, is disrespectful to your fellow Republicans.

You can argue it makes us look bad. But do so with respect.

What&#39;s acceptable: I don&#39;t like this meme and doesn&#39;t think it helps our cause, but I can see why people find it funny and find it to be a valid answer to what the left has done to us for decades.

What&#39;s not acceptable: The MAGA&#39;s who suck Trump&#39;s dick love this shit, but it makes us look bad.

I would say to all the users who worry about looking bad to the left: I know you care about looking bad to the left, but how about looking bad to your fellow party? Comments like the one just above make YOU look bad to ME and many of your fellow Republicans.

Show respect.

-[Insert Prominent Republican&#39;s Name] is a piece of shit! He&#39;s a traitor to the party!

I am a Christian first, a member of my family second, an American third, and a Republican lower on the list. I hope all of your have a similar hierarchy. Political parties are not the be-all and end-all.

Political parties are tools to pool votes in a coalition to create a platform that a large number of people with many varying views can get behind and vote for in the face of another party that is doing the same with views we largely disagree with. They have value in the situations, but I kind of hate that they exist.

That said, being a sub FOR the party (although we are not affiliated with the GOP in any official capacity, we are just fellow Republicans), we do need to show deference to the party, we need to respect the party, we need to respect the umbrella, and we need to respect the individuals in the party.

I am not a fan of Romney but I respect that he is a Republican. So if I criticize him, I might have a little fun, but I won&#39;t just trash him. Keep in mind, would you rather the left win, or have a [insert Republican you don&#39;t like]? In my case, I&#39;d rather have a Romney than an Obama.

What is acceptable: Romney doesn&#39;t feel all that Republican to me these days and I really don&#39;t like how he keeps breaking from Republicans on so many issues, to the point I&#39;d call him a RINO. But he&#39;s a strong business man and I&#39;d take him over Obama any day.

What is not: Fuck that loser Romney. He&#39;s a RINO piece of shit. I don&#39;t trust him.

Do you see the difference? One way criticizes while showing solidarity with the party, the other way is making it difficult to have any solidarity because it&#39;s so disrespectful.

We need solidarity. That does not mean we accept &quot;traitors&quot; if indeed we have any, but that does mean that we do not treat our fellow Republicans like crap. We don&#39;t throw them to the wolves unless it is clear we must. We don&#39;t cast them aside unless the allegations against them are credible. If they are indeed a RINO, show the receipts, but be respectful.

Matt Gaetz is a prime example. The right thing to do was to cut ties with him, but not before allegations were credible enough (especially knowing the left has made so many false accusations before). And also it should be done with the understanding that a lot of senators and congressman of all parties have likely been in a similar situation but just haven&#39;t been caught. He shouldn&#39;t have done what he seems to have done and it&#39;s inexcusable, but it also seems like a political targeting. Both of those things can be true at the same time.

We don&#39;t jump down a Republican&#39;s throat at the first accusation of impropriety, we let the facts come out and then deal with it appropriately. Getting hysterical about it from the first moment would lead to us not having Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh on the bench. We wouldn&#39;t have Trump. And think about how many it worked on. It worked on Romney, it worked on Bork (look him up), it worked on so many others. This is the left&#39;s MO. They tried to get rid of Hegseth because of a tattoo and baby clothes. Don&#39;t buy their hysterics, let the facts come out.

I hope this clears things up.


Joe Biden Set A New Record While He Was President — And It’s Not A Good One


This is great news for me and my family... i hope this helps others with cancer concerns! Possible cancer reversal on cellular level.


WATCH: Maddow's Weaselly Response to Being Wrong on Elon and US Gov't Buying Teslas


Sounded good when Obama wanted to slash Gov’t spending

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-mseTt6TbQg?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="LEAKED FOOTAGE just DESTROYED the DEMOCRATS."></iframe>


Do unauthorized immigrants contribute to the american economy??
all opinions welcome

Tell me…


He Had a Pen and Phone: Enjoy This Flashback of Obama Saying He Didn't Need Congress to Cut Spending


Why are we selling our top tech fighter jets to a country that is part of Brics?
Why would we sell our top tech to anyone besides our very closest and trusted long time allies?

F-35s to India


This, Says it all!


Yeehaw


French prez Emmanuel Macron sets emergency summit for European leaders

Should be an interesting meeting....


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/goSbJ-HRz3Y?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="JD Vance TORCHES European Leaders In Epic Speech"></iframe>


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z36EitRyBUs?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Byron Donalds SHUTS DOWN the Breakfast Club  #trump"></iframe>


CNN and MSNBC Spread Democrats' Unpopular Messaging and, in the Process, Reap Diminishing Returns


Massachusetts votes to become an LGBTQ sanctuary city. These are some of the “highlights” from the event

Liberal Meltdowns at Massachusetts City council meeting

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ptcUDK8js18?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Liberal Meltdowns For 12 Minutes Straight"></iframe>


As  Trump Drains The Swamp, Democrat Sea Creatures Emerge


Trump administration fires more than a dozen immigration judges


House Republicans prepare to impeach federal judges blocking Trump, DOGE policies


new polling offers a terrifying vista of democrats possible future


Which cabinet pick is the best fit or most qualified?


Mexico And Canada Made A U-TURN After Trump's Tarif

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GTNo_u4-HVo?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Mexico And Canada Made A U-TURN After Trump&#39;s Tarif"></iframe>


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VQQJxnyJKYU?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Dave Chappelle Censored on SNL, Trump-Putin Summit, Controversial Ohio Bill Proposed | News Wrap Up"></iframe>


Hundreds of Texas National Guardsmen Deputized for Immigration Enforcement


Alarmists Bemoan Climate Research Funding Freeze


Ohio bill would make it illegal to ejaculate without the intent to conceive a child ... You'll never guess who's exempt


Democrats Demand Transparency From Man Who Posts Literally Everything He Does On The Internet


Trump blames everyone but himself for inflation rising


The Hammer Drops at Justice


HUD Sec. Scott Turner Launches DOGE Task Force, Already Finds $260 Million in Savings


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0QKaOu24mgw?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Disgraced Diddy INTERVIEWS Hilary Clinton"></iframe>


Google renames Denali back to Mount McKinley after Trump order


Keeping Up With Trump: Here’s Everything He Did Week Four


The Left’s Sue Everything That Moves Strategy May End Up Delivering Trump Ultimate Victory


BOOM: DOGE Gets a Sweet Victory in Court


Here Are the Top DOGE Takedowns So Far


Obama’s forerunner to DOGE.  Where was the protest then.


Mr. President, stop woke banks from targeting conservatives and Christians


ICE Boston arrests illegal Guatemalan national charged with forcibly raping Massachusetts minor


Every time i post a comment that’s even more remotely conservative I get drowned in downvotes. Begs the question is everyone on this platform cucked by Bernie sanders and the socialist dummiecrats?

Is everyone on Reddit a libcuck?


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bEguNfk9jFE?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="LARRY KUDLOW: Sheriff Pam Bondi is making New York great again"></iframe>


Jay-Z & Diddy Lawsuit Dismissed, Biden Grant Scandal, NYC ICE Move & More | News Wrap Up

<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1aM6gwDdx4g?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="Jay-Z &amp; Diddy Lawsuit Dismissed, Biden Grant Scandal, NYC ICE Move &amp; More | News Wrap Up"></iframe>


USAID Helped Fund Hamas Tunnel System


U.S. Army Ends Gender-Affirming Procedures, Bans Trans Individuals


She's SO MAD! Watch New York AG Letitia James RAGE Against Trump Cutting NY's Illegal Alien Housing Funds


Trump Administration Is Taking Action Against Government-Run Schools Pushing Gender Ideology


<iframe width="356" height="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gILM8TiRm1A?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen title="JD Vance Defend Tulsi Gabbard From This Host"></iframe>


Thoughts on this article? Layoffs to hit IRS as DOGE targets tax collections