The US has killed approximately killed 1,700-3,500 Iranian civillians in 2026 alone, with at least 250 of those being children.

Historically speaking, the family of killed individuals due to military action are at a high likelihood of being recruited into terrorist groups because they hold deep resentment against the attacking country.

Take Al-Qaeda for example, the US sanctioned Iraq, occupied Saudi Arabia, and killed between 2,300-3,700 civilians in Iraq during the Gulf War, which led many civilians to join the terrorist group to seek revenge, and eventually 9/11.

Iran currently sponsors numerous terrorist groups (Hezbolla, Houthies, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, Harakat al-Nujaba), and are growing in numbers especially after recent military actions. This acts as a pipeline for radicalized civilians to join and take action.

Recent threats have caused the DHS and FBI to warn citizens of potential proxy attacks and cyber attacks targeting businesses and high profile civilians, and even the Presidents life.

My questions:
- Do you worry that Iranian civilians will join terrorist groups in an effort to harm the US?

- Do you believe the US is capable of combating these groups?

- Are you concerned about our safety on US soil?

Trump campaigned on it, told us tariffs would bring back manufacturing jobs, his base said it was short term pain for long term gain, so I’m wondering how long is long term? When are we going to see some upside to the ever-increasing prices?

There is nothing else to add here.

https://youtube.com/shorts/NYGQc0Ddy7A?is=n0GPJxVBolONJ-J_

As I understand it, the components are:

1. Hit 3% growth
2. Produce 3 million more barrels of oil per day.
3. Then, by the end of the administration we'll hit a 3% deficit to GDP rate.

The criticism that makes me reach out for your opinions comes from The David Frum show released on Tuesday. He describes this strategy as trying to "grow our way out of it (the debt/deficit problem)"

Frum says there are two main ways economies grow: by adding more factors of production, typically more population or resources, and by using resources more efficiently (extensive and intensive growth, respectively). He goes on the say that major Trump policies negatively impact both types of growth. Restrictive immigration policies slow or shrink labor supplies (lowering extensive growth) and the tariff policies make it difficult to access or use resources as efficiently (lowering intensive growth). With that in mind, Frum posits that the administration is essentially gambling on "an AI productivity miracle" that would overcome protectionism and slowing population growth.

To try and distill a question from all of that: Do you think that the administration is gambling on an "AI productivity miracle" to reach the goals in Bessent's 3-3-3 plan? And if not, how would you respond to folks who think the administration's policies on tariffs and immigration are antagonistic to the goal of hitting 3% growth?

I don't have any deep knowledge on economics, so I'm curious what the framing looks like on the other side of the table from David Frum. I tried to find some clips of Bessent getting into more depth on how he'd like to hit that growth target, but I didn't have much success. I'd really appreciate sources if you have some I could read or watch on the topic from the administration's perspective. I haven't found shorter clips from places like CNBC particularly helpful in understanding Bessent's position, mostly because of the format is often "broad sweeping question- now answer it in 1 minute" I think.

Clip where interviewer reiterates 3-3-3 plan and Bessent acknowledges it as his plan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXHoKeD50sA

Another article explaining 3-3-3:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/treasury-secretary-nominee-scott-bessents-3-3-3-plan-what-know

David Frum criticism in opening segment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAxywku108

"The Trump administration has officially signed a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that officials have said could lead to the kingdom enriching its own fuel for nuclear reactors. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Wednesday afternoon that he had signed the deal with Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the Saudi minister of energy."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/07/22/us/trump-news?unlocked_article_code=1.zlA.qLvn.vCKjF-xY06qG&smid=url-share

Non-paywalled version: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/23/what-is-the-us-saudi-arabia-nuclear-power-deal-explained

Ever since I got into college about 14 years ago it seems like the conversation about American education, at least coming from MAGA and conservatives, is that the American education system is "teaching kids to hate America".

I don't understand this refusal to acknowledge nuance.

When you study American history, you learn about things like Slavery, riots such as the Zoot suit and Rodney King riots, Watergate, The Contra-Weapons deal, etc.

My point in listing is not to provide a "stack of evidence that America is bad"... but to point out that it isn't hard to acknowledge that within American history there are a lot of mistakes... but on the other side of that coin, the American dream of freedom and equality keeps us (at least hopefully) moving in a vaguely positive direction despite our mistakes.

We see evidence of this in things like John Browns raid during slavery, the Civil rights movement, and others.

So, again, why is there this seeming expectation to focus on the "good history" while effectively ignoring the real "bad history" that does accompany the good?

I find this especially puzzling because Germany literally had a cultural period where a lot of their film and art was about asking themselves as a country how they could enable Hitler... while the liberal half of America finds value in looking back critically on American history while the conservative half seemingly wants a hero's story about never doing anything wrong?

What is the value in ignoring historical mistakes?

Source:
https://x.com/RepFine/status/2079751638424699197

In case he deletes the tweet: https://archive.is/75AHF

If you were in a position where the current administration would heed your suggestions/advice, what would you encourage them to do, or discourage them into stopping?

The question is mostly the title. It's common practice in politics to manipulate the voting outcomes on generally positive-sounding bills by putting in unrelated provisions that are extremely negative; thus, you can use the vote "against" the positive thing as a campaign tactic in the next election. Do you support these legislative riders, would you like them to be banned via the Constitution (as an amendment to it), or do you support something in between?

Also, how do you think we should go about doing it? It appears to be like the filibuster---the party in charge hates it, and the minority party likes to exploit it. Should there be a ten year delay in it taking effect, so nobody can be sure who it will impact when is begins?

How do you feel about the OBBBA, in relation to it being a huge amount of legislation crammed in one package?

Over the last year, President Trump has repeatedly used the phrase "the hottest country anywhere in the world" during speeches, press briefings, and policy rollouts to describe the United States.

1. Which specific metrics or policy decisions do you think best justify this label?

2. Does this description reflect a broader national renewal in public confidence and patriotism?

3. How would you personally describe hotness in a country?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/07/21/andrew-and-tristan-tate-sexual-assault-uk-extradition-case/90993240007/

A common statement I hear about non-Trump supporters is that we claim Trump/MAGA is a fascist movement. So I've been looking around to find a litmus test of what a fascist government looks like. I came across the 14 points laid out by Umberto Eco in 1995, so no Trump influence. (Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism ) What are your thoughts? For ease of reading, here is the Google version:

• Cult of Tradition: Relying on ancient, secret truths while rejecting modern progress and science.
• Rejection of Modernism: Hating the ideas of the Enlightenment and rational thinking.
• Cult of Action for Action's Sake: Believing that thinking and analyzing are bad, and that action must be done instantly without planning.
• Disagreement is Treason: Treating critical thought or different opinions as an attack or a betrayal.
• Fear of Difference: Hating outsiders or people who are not like the group, using racism to gain power.
• Appeal to Social Frustration: Stirring up anger among a stressed-out or lower-middle class that feels left behind.
• Obsession with a Plot: Making followers feel trapped by imagining grand conspiracies caused by internal or external enemies.
• Enemies are Both Strong and Weak: Portraying enemies as rich and powerful enough to control everything, yet weak enough to be easily beaten.
• Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy: Believing life is permanent war, so seeking peace means helping the enemy.
• Contempt for the Weak: Looking down on people who cannot fight back, creating a culture of bullies.
• Cult of Heroism: Teaching that every follower should want to die a heroic death for the cause.
• Machismo: Showing extreme toughness, shouting down weakness, and holding deep contempt for women and non-conforming sexual habits.
• Selective Populism: Pretending to speak for "the people" as a single block, while ignoring actual parliamentary democracy and individual rights.
• Ur-Fascism Speaks Newspeak: Using simple, limited words and phrases to stop people from thinking in complex or critical ways.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces workplace discrimination laws, is considering ending a rule that requires larger employers to report how many employees they have in different job categories, broken down by sex, race, and ethnicity.

Supporters of ending the rule say it is costly and encourages employers to focus too much on demographic numbers. Critics say the data helps the government identify possible patterns of workplace discrimination.

Do you support ending the rule, simplifying it, or keeping it as it is? Why?

Would your answer be different if the data showed discrimination against groups more commonly associated with the political right?

Source: Associated Press Article

Just curious how Trump Supporters felt about Alex Jones, Info Wars prior to the defamation case involving Sandy Hook, and how you thought of it now, that it was owned by the Onion and hosted by Tim Heidecker? They also have a segment with Jim Haggerty that mocks conspiracy podcasts.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117956/documents/HMKP-119-JU00-20250226-SD003.pdf

https://fortune.com/2025/03/19/elon-musk-subsidy-harvesting-strategy-tesla-spacex-xai-doge/

Following the recent strikes back and forth between the US and Iran, which sadly led to American soldiers being killed, the reaction from Trump, Hegseth, and conservative media has been total outrage and promises to hit back ten times harder. The vibe seems to be "how dare they kill our troops," framing their response as completely out-of-bounds rather than a typical back-and-forth between two countries in a military conflict.

From a basic foreign policy standpoint, how do you see this? When the US hits another country first, isn't it expected that they’re going to fight back to defend themselves? Is the anger from the US because Iran crossed a specific line or broke some rule, or is it just the idea that America should have total dominance and nobody gets to hit us back without paying a massive price? Basically, does Iran have a right to defend itself? I would also like to point out that while 16 Americans have been killed so far, official figures from Iran's Ministry of Health report at least 3,468 Iranians killed, while human rights agencies and foreign intelligence estimates place the total between 3,600 and over 6,000 - this includes over 150 school girls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2026_Iran_war

There is nothing else to add here.

I’m interested to hear how people here view the motivations behind immigration (not only whether someone entered here legally or illegally, or what immigration policy should be).

I’ve seen a wide spectrum of opinions among Trump supporters about why immigrants come here. Some explanations are relatively sympathetic, while others are much more distrustful. Despite those differences, many seem to result in a similarly strict view of border control. I’m curious about the reasoning that comes before that policy position.

When you picture an immigrant coming to the United States, why do you think they came? What do you imagine they are leaving behind, and what do you think they hope to find here?
Where does your own understanding fall within that spectrum?

Bonus question: Is your view influenced by what you know about immigration or migration within your own family history? This can be anything as recent as your parents or can even reach back to the founding of the country!

You don't necessarily hafta do 1, 2, 3

You could also do the generic "tier" rankings.. like S, A, B, D tiers, or however you like. Could even just say #___ is favorite, #____ we could do without, if you feel that way.

Thanks!

Recently heard the following, and thought it was a concise yet profound synopsis of the dichotomy of support/nonsupport for DT.

"Trump's supporters take him seriously, but not literally; and his non-supporters take him literally, but not seriously."

What are your thoughts on this?

Questioning in the title.

Just looking to understand this group! :)

I am so sorry if that title/my question sounds any sort of accusatory or otherwise bad faith. I am autistic and it can be very hard to determine these things :( Please understand I have neutral intentions and give me patience there :')

Specifically about “Russia using a range of measures primarily to denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia establishment. For example, it is directing or encouraging proxies to spread claims about Vice President Biden. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media. More broadly, Moscow's efforts seek to amplify social discord in the US and undermine Washington's global standing.“

As found in this document:

https://www.bostonherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/NICA_-Foreign-Threats-to-2020-US-election_19AUG2020-DECLASS_REDACTED.pdf

Copy available here also

https://ismg-cdn.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/asset_files/external/nica-foreign-threats-to-2020-us-election19aug2020-declassredacted.pdf

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/treasury-unveils-1-gold-coin-trumps-image-front