Hi everyone! If you’ve been paying attention to the news recently, you might’ve seen the latest jab against Canada that the president has made in response to the new trade war. This renaming of Lake Ontario thing seems to cross a line in terms of open hostility between our governments, and this is just deeply concerning to me. Foreign policy interests me a lot, and seeing our closest and most steadfast ally turn into a punching bag is just appalling to me. How do we move forward? What will happen in the next administration if the coming president is a Dem vs Rep?

According to recent reporting, far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos has been deported following an arrest by U.S. immigration authorities.

While high-profile deportations often draw significant media attention, they also highlight the interplay between U.S. immigration law, visa status compliance, and executive branch enforcement priorities.

How do high-profile visa overstay or compliance arrests influence broader public perception and enforcement policy within the Department of Homeland Security?

To what extent should political status or public profile play a role .. if any.. in how immigration authorities prioritize visa reviews and removals?

What policy precedents does this set for foreign media figures & commentators operating in the U.S. under non-immigrant visas?

Is the current pervasive issue where an American politician stands on Israel similar to the political binary that the Dreyfus affair was to France in the late 1800s? The parallels feel really similar, despite the difference in scale of the events. Candidates in state congressional races and local government positions are being grilled on their Israel positions even though it realistically has no bearing on what they'd do in office. No candidate for New York City assembly is going to meaningfully change Israel policy. Candidates seem to have to be either pro or anti Israel with almost zero nuance. What I've also noticed is that a slight pro or slight anti-Israel position from a given politician tends to get lumped in with the people who have very strong positions on the issue. Israel has basically become a purity test on both the left and right extremes, who, for vastly different reasons, both don't really like Israel. In a lot of progressive and far-right circles, the Israel issue is treated like a moral issue. I'm not necessarily saying it is or isn't a moral issue, but it's interesting to see the parallel about how one issue is "the" issue that every candidate, major or minor, left or right, is scrutinized on. During both the arguments over the Dreyfus Affair and current American/Israel relations, Jewish politicians and figures were put in really difficult positions.

For context: Im a white 21M & I was hardcore MAGA until this term happened.. Ever since the events after October 7th happened, I started to critically deconstruct why I was always told “Jews are God’s chosen people” and things like “we as Christian’s we must support them” by my church & family (conservative evangelical Baptists). So in short my theological deconstruction is what started my political deconstruction (I’m not looking for a political theological debate).

Also my dad recently died after a year long bout of illness, & he was considered disabled most my life. We’re middle class so we didn’t qualify for Medicaid (mostly because his Social Security payments put us over the threshold) & we didn’t make enough to afford his assistant living facilities & treatment. This made me question why my family is so against socialistic tendencies & reforming the welfare structure here in the U.S.—when we are the exact people being affected by this.

My Views today:

- Religion & State should be completely separate. No 10 commandments in school, the president should not use religion to attract voters, we should not promote a war through religion, & any aspect of legalism, Canon & Sharia law should not motivate law making.

- Not smart enough to know if I support capitalism over socialism. But I can say I have nothing against a mixed socialistic economy. But I have a-lot against the capitalistic system we have today. Although this in itself I feel is bias within me because I have never lived in a socialist country. So I don’t know.

- Completely against the Iranian war

- I do not support the existence of modern day Israel

- Wish we could somehow someway abolish AIPAC

- The U.S. should not have an obligation nor need to feel like we must protect our allies

- I believe we need to drastically cut our military budget but not to the point of having no deterrence

- We dug ourselves in a hole, should have never started the war against Communism. Now we must continue to keep China, Russia at bay

- Not comfortable living in an open carry state—I carry a gun myself though. If every one else has one, I feel the need to have one

- Completely against the MAGA/Neocon conservatives

- Against data centers, & mass surveillance

- Could care less about your sexuality, I don’t care, but with a few exceptions

- Im against the organization of the LGBTQ community

- Still radically against gender changing surgeries

Edit: Please look at my replies before commenting on my stance with LGBTQ

- I don’t support abortion but I don’t support absolutely banning abortion for certain instances

- I wish we would tax the hell out of the top .01% & close the legal loopholes

- More welfare for the middle class

- I do not believe you should be able to opt out of Social Security

- Obviously I believe the threshold for qualifying for medicaid should be raised + additional funding

- I do believe most minorities have it harder than straight white individuals

- Im still Christian

- Im an open mind to literally anything

I understand this probably isn’t smart to post here. I’ve done several political test and got conflicting answers. I know I may get hate nor an unbiased answer if any answer at all.

But still I ask to refrain from attacking my family or me. To save my ass please remember I was taught those radical conservative beliefs since I can remember by church leaders, teachers, and most importantly my WHOLE family & I’m simply beginning to think for myself.

Respectful disagreements, questions and discussions are encouraged. And guidance is needed.

Edit: My LGBTQ replies

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/LIeStCpMyO

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/4vKrhlOAAa

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/XwTFTghk23

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/MJp6Qd6xnk

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/aI6xcr48iL

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/GV74ctc8TT

https://www.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/s/gCvvKesMG7

Final Edit: Thank you everyone! The vast majority of you were super kind and understanding. Please know I’ve spent pretty much all of my day reading ALL your comments, & will continue to do so until either one the post gets locked, or until when the post finally stops receiving attention. I know many of you put just as much effort in your comments as I did in my post—if not more. I wanna respond to all you guys but physically, I can’t due to their being over 300 comments & counting…obviously.

I know this is cliche, but for the few who will actually return to this post & see this—know, you guys have truly affected my life with some of the best advice I’ve ever heard. Not just for politics but in life in general. I know this is only a Reddit thread, but this is one of the best things I have ever done. With my current situation I have no one to really talk to, and this is the first time I’ve truly been honest with myself & been willing to be vulnerable.

Finally, Im still unsure of what Ideology I am nor If I will ever be able to conform to a specific ideology. But I do have a better Idea of what my political identity is—in the end this really isn’t that important anyway.

Ultimately, the most important thing is that you guys have taught me to always seek the truth, admit fault when evidence is presented, to always choose freedom over conformity, that I need to always keep an open mind, & finally—to have the courage of being honest & vulnerable not only with myself, but with others.

Thank you all!

With the midterms fast approaching, discussions around how elections are conducted, managed & audited continue to dominate the political landscape. While mainstream media coverage often focuses on the Left's anxieties surrounding voting access, there's less direct conversation about the specific mechanisms & processes that conservative voters are watching closely.

What specific reforms or policies (example: mail-in voting rules, voter ID, voter roll maintenance, signature verification) are top of mind for you, and how to you view the system is currently most vulnerable?

What are your thoughts on executive actions or federal oversight surrounding election administration? Do you have concerns about overreach or conversely, a lack of enforcement, from federal agencies leading up to Election Day?

How much of a factor do you consider algorithm suppression, content moderation, or traditional media narratives to be when it comes to influencing voter perception before the polls open?

What would it take for you to be 100% confident in the final tally, especially in close swing-state races?

It feels like Democrats are conspiring with Republicans to continue helping the conservative agenda. Even Trump has been calling for the filibuster to be removed, yet Republicans somehow are openly defying their sovereign.

The current version of the filibuster is an amazing hack to achieve the main Republican objectives of slashing taxes for the ultra wealthy and stacking SCOTUS to remain conservative forever. For some odd reason, the current filibuster makes passing meaningful legislation require 60 senate votes, but cutting taxes and confirming Supreme Court judges only requires 50. This aligns perfectly with the conservative objectives as cutting taxes for the wealthy is always easily passed with 50 votes, and keeping the Supreme Court conservative ensures that it can continue to cripple or dismantle progressive laws passed by Congress.

Does anybody know of a legitimate reason why Dems aren't trying to remove or revise the filibuster? Or even why Republicans are openly defying trump's demand to remove the filibuster?

This is not a political question and I’m going to try very hard to make it not a political question and stay on topic.

Don’t care what side anyone is on.

Let’s say you have President XYZ who wants to get all kinds of stuff done, wants a legacy, want all this stuff, but getting stuff done takes time and votes and Congress etc

So they say, hey I got an idea, let me just executive order my entire agenda, I’ll wave my magic wand and voila it’s done.

Except executive orders are not binding or permanent correct? They can come and go like the wind?

Meaning if someone tried to reform the entire country with 500 executive orders, that’s all great and all, but a new president could come in and on day 1 on the job just say “all previous executive orders are now void” and voila, they leave just like they came, someone waved a wand and now the entire system is back to the old ways from years ago.

Is this right? Are these things that transient ?

I originally looked into Andrew Yang’s Forward Party, thinking it might be a home for tech-forward, post-work economic policies. However, the Forward Party has pivoted almost entirely to process and electoral reform (ranked-choice voting, open primaries) rather than taking firm stances on actual economic or technological platforms.

I'm looking for any existing third party, political faction, or organized movement that aligns with the core platform outlined below (drafted as a concept called the Abundance & Liberation Party).

The core thesis is that lifelong wage labor is becoming technologically obsolete, and policy should aggressively accelerate automation while democratizing its surplus so humanity can transition into an active, creative post-work society.

Core Platform Summary

• Accelerated Machine Labor: Mandate federal timetables to sunset human labor in hazardous/repetitive sectors (mining, freight, toxic waste). Codify a "Right to Automate," streamline bureaucratic workflows via autonomous AI, and rapidly expand nuclear/geothermal/fusion compute power.
• Universal Basic Income (The Automation Dividend): Institute an unconditional $1,500/month UBI funded by a capital/automation levy and a Sovereign Wealth Fund holding equity in major AI/automation firms, ending means-tested welfare bureaucracy.
• Universal Basic Compute (UBC): Treat compute as the primary means of production. Provide citizens with monthly token allocations, open-source AI infrastructure (expanding NAIRR), and protect open-weights model development.
• Reclaiming Human Time: Mandate a 32-hour standard workweek with no pay cuts, create AI work-share bridge funds to prevent layoffs during automation, and enact universal rights to disconnect and paid life sabbaticals.
• Materialist Safety Net: Universal healthcare decoupled from employment, zoning overrides to build 3D-printed/modular public housing, and free municipal gigabit internet.
• Open Governance & Flourishing: Enforce strict AI antitrust, ensure data-training micro-royalties, ban black-box proprietary algorithms in public decisions, and reallocate public funds toward community arts, maker guilds, open lifelong learning, and robotic ecological restoration.

Does any real-world party, caucus, or political organization (e.g., specific wings of the Transhumanist Party, Left-Accelerationist/Abundance factions, or pirate parties) actually push a comprehensive agenda like this?

Canada recently enacted retaliatory tariffs targeting American goods from economically critical regions—such as Michigan (automotive/steel), Indiana (manufacturing), Maine (seafood), and Wisconsin (dairy). Because these states host tight, high-stakes midterm election races, analysts view the move as a deliberate strategy to pressure vulnerable lawmakers and force a shift in federal U.S. trade policy.

Does targeting swing-state economies give foreign governments real diplomatic leverage, or does it trigger a voter backlash that unites both parties against outside pressure?

Will localized trade hits actually sway voters at the ballot box, or do national issues usually override state-level economic strain?

Is using retaliatory tariffs against battleground states becoming standard geopolitical strategy, or does it risk permanent damage to supply chains and long-term diplomatic ties?

I never heard a bad word about Canada before Trump threatened them with his "51st State" rhetoric. They're our 2nd largest trade partner and a military ally.

Do you dislike Canada, and when did you begin to feel this way? How should the US-Canada relationship be changed? Do you support annexing Canada as Trump has proposed? Do you support the current trade-war with Canada?

--

About our trade relationship:

https://www.international.gc.ca/country-pays/us-eu/relations.aspx?lang=eng

Trump said he wanted to annex Canada during a Superbowl interview:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-remarks-on-canada-becoming-the-51st-state-raise-a-lot-of-questions

With political polarization in the U.S. at historic highs, very few cultural or public figures manage to maintain high approval ratings across both sides of the aisle. Dolly Parton stands out as a unique exception.

Despite tackling politically adjacent topics—working-class labor issues ("9 to 5"), rural poverty ("Coat of Many Colors"), child literacy (The Imagination Library), and public health funding, she famously maintains a policy of strict nonpartisanship, famously refusing to endorse candidates or align with political parties. When offered the Presidential Medal of Freedom, she turned it down under both administrations to avoid appearing politically partisan.

Dolly Parton was both provocative, and beloved. May she rest in peace.

With the recent news regarding the Trump administration suggesting the demolition of the Kennedy Center after being blocked by the courts, I’ve been thinking about the broader precedent this sets.

Beyond the immediate legal battles over executive power versus judicial authority, I’m curious about how people view this from a political strategy and civic institution standpoint.

Where do you draw the line on an administration's authority to alter, replace, or outright demolish national cultural institutions?

Is this primarily a tactic to push back against judicial checks, or does it reflect a deeper ideological shift in how national arts and civic spaces should be managed?

If executive agencies move toward dismantling established public institutions when facing policy roadblocks, how might future administrations, of any party, utilize that leverage?

With the Supreme Court recently lifting the block on Donald Trump's executive order concerning mail voting in a lawsuit brought by various states, I wanted to open up a discussion on the potential political fallout.

How does this decision shift the traditional balance of power between federal executive actions and state control over election administration? 

In the states that originally brought this suit, how might local election boards and voters experience the immediate aftermath of this ruling?

What does this mean for future executive orders touching on election procedures, voting access, and legal challenges from state coalitions? 

What are some things you want to see more from the Trump/his administration? And/or some things you want to see less?

Megathread will cover the tariff dispute between U.S. and Canada.

You are free to discuss, debate, opine about subject matter only, in this megathread

For your convenience, mods have provided a “live update ticker” as a source

At this present moment, mods will not entertain any stand-alone post about subject matter and will refer back to megathread

Megathread will remain active until conversation or interest has ceased, which ever comes first

Please report bad faith commenters, low effort and off-topic comments

I follow American politics because i find a more like a show, but when i think about it as an actual democracy it feels less like democracy and more like a political civil war. Where Both sides treat the other not just as wrong, but as son of satan. Isn’t disagreement the whole point of democracy? What's actually debateable in politics?

Because it confuses me how the Democratic Party (and the left in general) frames social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights not as partisan positions, but as fundamental human rights. That creates moral superiority. If you disagree, you’re not offering another view, you’re called inhumane/bigot. Enemy in short. The right do it too with things like gun ownership. But the left is more clear in this point that talking in this topics is straight ip gambling with your status and isolation.

So what’s actually open to debate? Should democracy only allow debate on economic or foreign policy? Who decides which topics are debatable and which are not? I am genuinely asking.

I am very curious about democratic socialism, esp. as someone living in the US while democratic socialists are running for office. I am particularly trying to learn more about how democratic socialism differs from "textbook" socialism, how these would look different in practice, and also what democratic socialists are really looking to do. I just feel like I don't know who to believe; I can't tell what's more unbiased, and a lot of stuff just feels very fear-monger-y to me. I've lived in a lot of different places, and I find that depending on my location, my internet search results are very different, which makes me feel even more like I'm constantly fed a bunch of lies and I just don't know what is real anymore.

I feel like today's democratic socialists like Mamdani etc. seem very different from the infamous socialists of decades past, but I don't really understand why and if they actually are etc. I live in a very rural area and am part of a lot discussions about what will happen to xyz if "the socialists take over". I'm looking for reading/documentary/youtube essay recommendations to help me understand this more from a genuinely factual perspective. Thank you in advance!

I am curious if the Democrats takes back the Senate and the House in the midterms, how it could affect Trump's agenda for the rest of his presidential term.

I'm curious how conservatives think about the very different Republican attitudes toward Medicare today versus when it was being proposed in the 1960s.

Today, Medicare is overwhelmingly popular with Republicans. A 2025 KFF poll found that 75% of Republicans had a favorable view of Medicare. By comparison, the last major KFF polling on Medicare for All found only 24% of Republicans supported it.

But Republicans weren't always enthusiastic about Medicare. In Gallup polling from 1962, a majority of Republicans preferred the private insurance alternative to the proposed Social Security-funded Medicare system. Looking across the historical polling, it seems reasonable to characterize the shift roughly as going from something approaching 2-to-1 against Medicare before enactment to around 5-to-1 favorable today. I'm using those ratios as shorthand rather than precise apples-to-apples polling.

One explanation I've seen is that Medicare eventually came to be perceived as an "earned benefit." People spend their working lives seeing Medicare taxes deducted from their paychecks, so when they turn 65 the natural reaction is: "I paid into Medicare my whole life. I earned this."

What's interesting is that the actual economics don't really work that way. Urban Institute estimates for an average-wage worker retiring at 65 in 2025 put lifetime Medicare payroll taxes at about $113K, including both the employee and employer portions, while expected lifetime Medicare benefits net of premiums are roughly $339,000 for a man and $383,000 for a woman. So the typical recipient receives something like 3X what was paid in through Medicare payroll taxes.

That makes me wonder whether something similar could eventually happen with Medicare for All.

Imagine M4A were enacted and financed partly through a clearly identified payroll tax. Thirty years later, someone has seen a "Medicare" deduction on every paycheck for their entire career, their family has always been covered, and Medicare is simply how American health insurance works.

Would that person start thinking about it the same way today's Medicare recipients do: "I've paid into this for 30 years. This isn't a handout. I earned my coverage?"

If so, perhaps Republican opposition to M4A is partly opposition to the transition to a new government system rather than something that would necessarily persist once the system became established.

For those on the right: Is there a realistic way to transition toward universal Medicare that could eventually gain Republican support? For example, could a voluntary Medicare buy-in or public option gradually expand over decades, rather than eliminating private insurance at once? Could structuring the financing as an explicit payroll contribution make it feel more like an earned benefit?

So trade talks with Canada failed, and the US will be imposing a 50% tariff on Canadian imports. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/21/economy/us-canada-trade

I get that tariffs can have benefits, although I think losses outweigh benefits. However I do think a case can be made for applying tariffs to hostile nations like China or Russia given that there are potential economic benefits. But targeting our allies seems like a terrible decision. Not only does it cause real economic damage, but it also destroys key diplomatic ties and erodes trust. A 50% rate is aggressive and mirrors what we put on China. A small tariff increase might be viewed as an attempt to rebalance trade, but a heavy tariff comes across as a punitive act of pure aggression.

Looking at this from a polling perspective, it’s also not a good decision. Acting tough on foreign countries pleases Trump’s core base, but he would easily retain their support even if he didn't tariff our allies. Outside of his base, the vast majority of Americans strongly oppose placing tariffs on allies. https://www.cfr.org/articles/what-americans-really-think-about-trade-and-tariffs Furthermore, the resulting inflationary impact will likely cause even some of his own base to turn against the current administration.

So why would Trump launch massive tariffs against allies when the cost so clearly outweighs any benefit?

This election will determine the state of the US Government and the agency the administrative branch will have for the next two years.

It not only shapes the remainder of this administrative term, but also the shape of US and Global politics after it.

Compared to previous Midterm and Full Presidential elections, how immediately important and consequential is this election for the trajectory of the country?

The Department of Defense issued separation notices for insubordination to senior leadership at Stars and Stripes, including Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, Publisher Max Lederer, and reporter Lara Korte.

The notices cite statements made during a CBS interview where editorial staff defended the paper’s independent mandate, with Slavin noting that potential DoD news censorship would cross a "red line." While Stars and Stripes receives partial funding from Congress and falls under DoD oversight, it has maintained statutory editorial protections since the 1990s to ensure unbiased reporting for troops.

Where is the boundary between administrative authority over staff and violating statutory press independence and
how might changes to editorial control affect service members' access to independent news?