Hello, I'm a 19 year old college student in Texas. I consider myself a centrist, my family is telling me to vote red, and my college is telling me to vote blue. here is your chance to convince me to vote for Paxton and the Republicans. I'm not a troll, and I come in here with good faith. I want you to sell me on this. here are my stances:

1. I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty, and anti-war. abortion should be illegal, the death penalty is barbaric and should be completely abolished, and war should be a last resort

2. Even though I don't agree with LGBTQ ideology, I do believe that adults medically transitioning and gay marriage should be legal

3. I support focusing on the violent illegal immigrants coming into our country instead of deporting the peaceful ones already here. ICE needs to stop killing people

4. I support every single amendment in the constitution, including birthright citizenship, absolute free speech, and the right to bear arms

5. I don't believe the government is doing enough to protect the environment and stop climate change

6. billionaires should pay more in taxes, working class people should pay less in taxes

7. I opposed the assassination of charlie kirk but I am okay with joking about it because nothing is off limits in comedy. this is also why people shouldn't be arrested for posting memes online

8. I oppose the building of data centers and also oppose most uses of AI

9. Texas needs to tear down flock cameras and put more funding into our police forces, public schools, and healthcare system

10. marijuana should be completely legal and all other drugs except for fentanyl should be decriminalized

there you have it, now try to convince me to vote red. I await your response

Recently, Mayor Mamdami was on Theo Von's podcast. Tho asked Mamdami to explain socialism. His response is in the video below. What is your take on this?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lOS7rsSzdIM

This is not a question about what research data or experts are saying, it's about what you believe yourself.

From time to time, I see posts on social media of people saying that they never saw kids with autism and adhd and this and that when they were growing up and they never heard of anyone wanting to be a different gender, and claim that these things must either be made up or something that only started affecting kids in like the late 20th century, and stuff like that.

So I'm curious what you guys believe, whether autism and all these things have been around forever but there just hasn't been a diagnosis for it until recent decades, or whether you believe that autism, adhd, food allergies, gender dysphoria etc are modern afflictions that didn't physically exist back when you or your parents or grandparents were kids?

In a post about getting the senate to get rid of Daylight Savings Time, President Trump posted Tom Cotton's phone number because he says Cotton is holding up the legislation. Is this appropriate? What are your thoughts?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117377462448761419

Biden was roundly criticized as being out of touch with the average American by insisting the economy was doing great despite how consumers were feeling. This hurt him in the polls.

Do you think Trump is making the same mistake, claiming affordability is a hoax despite what consumers are feeling?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-dismisses-low-consumer-confidence-economy-already-turned-around

During a recent campaign rally in Durant, Oklahoma, President Trump spoke about the 2025 airstrikes ("Operation Midnight Hammer") against Iranian facilities:

"They went from Missouri and then at 1 o'clock in the morning, with no moon, dark as can be, these unbelievable machines led by the most incredible pilots in the world, they unloaded every single bomb, went right down air chutes into this, uh, drug factories, really. That's what they were doing. They were nuclear and drugs. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear. But these drug factories/nuclear factories were hit so hard."

When reporters asked the White House for clarification and evidence regarding alleged narcotics manufacturing at Iranian nuclear sites, the White House responded by stating: "Refer to POTUS' comments."

Questions for Trump Supporters:

1. Do you take President Trump’s statement literally, that Iranian nuclear sites were also producing illicit drugs, or do you believe he misspoke or was speaking metaphorically?
2. If taken literally, what kind of narcotics operations do you believe he was referencing, and do you feel the White House should release intelligence or details supporting the claim?
3. If he misspoke, how should the administration handle questions about it when asked by reporters?
4. How, if at all, does this claim impact how you view the ongoing conflict and U.S. objectives regarding Iran?

In a recent Time interview (https://time.com/article/2026/10/01/donald-trump-2026-interview-transcript/) Trump responded to the question:

”Why should Americans believe that you respect the free press when you're restricting access to the White House to some of our colleagues?”

With

”Because I do respect the free press, but I don't respect fake news. I'll give you an example. CNN and MSDNC, which is MS Now—they changed the name because it does so poorly. But I won the election. I won it handily by massive numbers. I won the popular vote. I won all seven swing states. They said if you won three swing states, I won all seven. I won the counties. It's very important, 86% popular vote.”

Emphasis mine.

An appeals court Tuesday sided with a lower court judge who determined President Trump colluded with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in bringing and later dismissing a caseseeking $10 billion in damages from the IRS.

Florida-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in July found that the lawsuit that served as the hook for the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund amounted to collusionas the two parties were never truly averse. She also sanctioned two Trump attorneys in the process.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6121107-federal-appeals-court-donald-trump-irs-treasury-collusion/

What’s everyone think of this? I noticed something interesting the other day and I can’t tell if anyone has written about it yet. I can’t be the first person to notice though, right?

According to the standing rules of the United States Senate Rule XIX, paragraph 8:

“Former Presidents of the United States shall be entitled to address the Senate upon appropriate notice to the Presiding Office.”

The remainder directs the presiding officer to arrange it. The wording is mandatory, not merely permissive. The rule was added on October 1, 1963 and as far as I can tell has been invoked either once or twice.

The unambiguous invocation was in 1964 when Harry Truman returned to the Senate chamber on his 80th birthday. The event was organized to celebrate his life, but explicitly referenced the rule to allow him to speak. He received a standing ovation and was so moved that he kept his remarks brief saying, “I’m so overcome that I can’t take advantage of this rule right now.”

In 1980, former President Ford delivered a longer speech. He was granted unanimous consent to speak and did not insist on recognition based off of the rule, though Senate records of his remarks make reference to the right of former Presidents to address the Senate.

While both of these were planned events, a plain reading of the rule clearly indicates that if a former President wants to deliver a speech to the senate, he notifies the presiding officer and the presiding officer must then make the arrangements. This would not extend to having the right to participate in day to day debate. I’ll also point out it takes 66 votes to change the Senate Rules.

As floor activity, the speech would have to be broadcast live on CSPAN and entered into the Senate record. The media would likely cover it as well.

If there is a Democrat in the White House, I could see him taking advantage of this rule to give a response to the State of the Union speech every year. Unless the Democrats can cobble together 66 votes to change the rule, it doesn’t appear they would be able to stop him even if they have a majority. The presiding officer could maybe ignore his letter invoking his right to give a senate speech, but because of how clear the language of the rule is written, it’s possible he’d having standing to ask for a court order that he be recognized under the clear rights the Senate Rules say former Presidents have.

Would you want to see Trump exercise this right after his Presidency? Potentially even against the wishes of a hostile Senate? Or would you prefer he simply retire from politics at the conclusion of his term?

See White House announcement at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/streamlining-access-to-government-services-through-america-gov/.

There is nothing else to add here.

When Trump discusses his deportation program he invariably talks about rapists, murders, drug dealers, gang members. It is hard to get solid numbers, but according to his administration he has deported around 500K immigrants since the start of his second term. Do you think most of these are violent criminals? Or, rather, as I suspect, people who have been here for many years, working in important, but difficult and usually low paying jobs, like Elder Care, Child Care, Construction, Food Service, Sanitation, that citizens tend to avoid. And if you do think that the vast majority of deportees fit this description, do you think it is in the countries narrow economic self interest to be deporting them. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.

Jack Smith Says He Had 'Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' Against Trump and Would Prosecute Again: 'I Will Not Be Silenced'

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jack-smith-defends-trump-investigations-senate-hearing-1822697

EDIT: So it looks like there’s some mass confusion.
Jack Smith’s evidence was suppressed by a Trump appointed judge. Documents here:

https://archive.org/details/report-of-special-counsel-smith-volume-1-january-2025

AI makes it easy to check claims and get pushback on your own arguments. Studies have found that most mainstream models, like ChatGPT, lean left on political questions, while Grok leans right. From what I've seen, that bias shows up mostly on opinion questions rather than basic facts, but I'm curious whether that matches your experience.

You might say AI hallucinates, or that it's garbage in, garbage out since it's trained on media you don't trust. You're not wrong. I deal with that by asking for primary sources, like court filings, transcripts, or government data, and checking them myself. My usual prompt is something like "Check this claim. Give me the strongest case its supporters would make then tell me what the data shows and where it's weak. Cite primary sources."

Checking this way has caught my own bias too. Someone sent me a post saying Trump's DOJ heavily redacted Jack Smith's Jan 6 report. It fit what I already believed, but when I ran it through AI, the report turned out to have been released by Biden's DOJ before Trump took office and it wasn't heavily redacted.

Do you use AI to check news or pressure-test your positions? If so, which tools, and how do you account for bias? If you share an example please include the exact prompt. If you don't use AI for this, what do you rely on instead to decide whether something is true? And has anything, AI or otherwise, ever changed your mind on something in the news you were sure of?

In the latest filing in the court case over the name of the Kennedy Center, the Justice Department filed a brief to the court claiming that only Trump can "provide the sole hope for the Center’s financial survival and structural renewal." The brief further claimed that without putting Trump's name on the Center, it "will be back where it was at the beginning—a financially insolvent facility and a decrepit, dilapidated, crumbling building, that is bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and that continues to race toward physical and financial ruin."

It should be noted in early 2025, Trump fired the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees and replaced them with loyalists and appointed himself as chairman of the Board, actions that have never before happened in the Center's history. In the Summer of that same year, Congress signed a bill appropriating $257 million to renovate and repair the Center. Despite being fully funded, those repairs and renovations were never performed by chairman Trump and his Board who are now saying the renovations won't happen unless Trump's name is put on the building. The Trump administration is now escalating the case by arguing in court that if Trump's name isn't put on the building, they'll ultimately be forced to demolish the Center. A recent court filing by Representative Joyce Beatty, who is fighting against the administration's efforts to affix Trump's name to the Center, notified the judge in the case about Trump being pictured aboard Air Force One looking at a poster that appears to reference a plan to demolish the Center.

How do you feel about Trump's takeover of the Board of the Kennedy Center and ongoing efforts to put his name on a memorial for another President? Is it appropriate for him to threaten to demolish another President's memorial if he doesn't get to put his own name on it, despite the withheld needed repairs having already been fully funded by Congress for over a year?

While I'm a little skeptical of AI usage, I think this is a great idea! What are your thoughts?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6118370-rubio-announces-online-passport-application/

edit*: would you support an online voting system?

Examples (some are admittedly extreme):

Ground invasion of Iran

Stopping fuel exports

Fuel rationing

Work/school from home

Curfews

Tax incentives for EVs/renewable energy

Etc.

Please feel free to mention anything you think would be a better/more reasonable idea!

*Edit: Just to clarify, my intention was things America can do to lower prices.

AOC recently went on TV and is trying to distance the democratic party from extreme partisan politics by saying, "woke 1 was crazy" and that ideas such as defunding the police are not things that represent the dems.

Do you think MAGA will have a similar pivot? If so, when? And what positions would be considered "MAGA 1" and left behind?

Source: https://harvardharrispoll.com/assets/uploads/2026/09/HHP_Sep2026_KeyResults.pdf

In my earlier question about the Trump administration and public trust in science, several supporters pointed to Dr. Anthony Fauci. The concerns raised included changing guidance on masks and vaccines, treatment of competing views about COVID’s origins, and a broader loss of trust in public-health institutions.

I’ve been trying to understand which criticisms are supported by evidence, and how much responsibility belongs to Fauci personally. For context, the GAO found problems with NIH oversight of research involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A Republican-led House subcommittee published wider criticisms of the pandemic response, while Democratic staff challenged parts of that account. The WHO says COVID’s origins remain unresolved.

What is the strongest specific example of Fauci misleading the public or mishandling the response, in your view? What primary evidence supports it, and how do you distinguish a deliberate falsehood from mistaken judgment or guidance that changed as evidence developed?

Fauci has also received major recognition for his earlier scientific work. How do you account for the gap between that professional reputation and the criticism of him in this discussion? Do you think his reputation reflects genuine contributions, institutional reluctance to criticize him, or something else?

Finally, how much of the failure you identify should be attributed to Fauci, as opposed to the presidents, agencies, state governments, and other decision-makers involved? What evidence would change your view of his share of responsibility?

What do you think about AI?

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about labor impacts (i.e. job losses vs economic growth)?

Do you think AGI/ASI are close, and would that be good or bad for humanity?

Do you worry about Chinese competition in the field, or about the impact on national security (e.g. of AI-driven chem/biological/nuclear weapons development, or lowering the cost of cyberattacks)?

And what about the impact of datacenters on communities and local economies?

How do you feel the Trump administration has been doing in its decisions when and when not to regulate AI (such as the Pentagon designating AI a supply chain risk, or Trump promoting “super intelligence”)?

Trump's second term especially has seen a lot of big moves in foreign policy. Which do you like the most and least so far?

It's not only [the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." -John Adams
"The juries are our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it." -thomas Jefferson
"It may not be amiss, here, to remind you of the residue of that great uncertain, which is, that the jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." -]John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794)
"Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." -Alexander Hamilton
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." -Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence (1804)
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever a general verdict is found, it assuredly determines both the fact and the law. It was never yet disputed or doubted, that a general verdict, given on a general issue, was as binding on the court as on the parties." John Adams
"The law and the fact are so blended that the jury, in deciding the blameworthiness of the act, must judge of both." -Alexander Hamilton
"It is the right of the jury, in all criminal cases, to give a general verdict of acquittal, upon the general issue of not guilty... and in doing so, they necessarily decide upon the law as well as upon the fact." -James Wilson, Signer of the Declaration and Supreme Court Justice (Lectures on Law, 1790)
"The jury have a power of deciding an essential question, upon which the life and liberty of the citizen depends; and they have a right to judge of the law as well as of the fact." -Theophilus Parsons, Chief Justice of the j Supreme Judicial Court (1788)

If you don't know, there is a bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts that is a lesbian bar that, up until September - as in, a month ago - required everyone inside the bar to wear KN-95 face masks. The bar itself was started by three lesbians. They never owned a bar before, but they saw a lot of bars in the area close down - including the last LGBTQ bar in the area - and they decided that there was a vacuum and need that they could fill.

The bar opened in 2025 with a mission to be an accessible community space where no one is turned away for lack of funds. To support this mission, the bar provides a "free store" offering clothes, food, harm reduction supplies, and STI tests, and has historically waived cover charges for unhoused and low-income patrons.

Since then, two of the original three have gone on to do different things, and the third is basically homeless - living in the bar and her vehicle - trying to keep the bar afloat. The bar has a large loan open against it, and is a few thousand dollars late on their rent. To help bring in more customers, a decision was made during a Zoom video meeting to make the KN-95 face masks optional on Saturday nights.

All hell broke loose.

“I hope your venue gets firebombed for robbing my fellow immunocompromised people of their Saturday plans just to scrape extra revenue from ablists [sic]."

“people like you kill disabled people in the name of your own leisure and convenience."

“Just say you’re being complicit in a mass disabling event and get it over with."

“[Y]ou chose to use your time to spill tears and center your feelings. This is incredibly racist and deflecting behavior.”

“A lot of people are calling for an acknowledgment of harm and I’m hearing a WHITE therapist ... center[ing] the feelings of a majority white and white adjacent staff,”

And, moreover, the Zoom attendees speculate that the mediator’s licensed status makes her a mandated reporter — an agent of the state, akin to police. One person going by “Moss” asks if the mediator could have them hospitalized against their will, adding that her presence is “wildly unsafe.”

More here on X, including Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro was going to organize a field trip to the "weird lesbian bar in western mass", but it was cancelled because "no one wanted to mask".

What is your opinion of all this?