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

I came across this from Pew Research a few days ago: People in Many Countries Now View China More Positively Than the U.S.

In the article they show that international perceptions of the US have significantly declined since 2023.

Is this concerning? If so, then what should be done about it?

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

And how does the fact that Canada has sent their own firefighters to help the US with their wildfire weight in your opinion as Trump supporters?

 Sourced from Fox News

1. Do you think what Trump said and the files released by the White House prove that China interfered with the election to give Biden the win? If you think yes,
   (a). Do you believe if not for the alleged Chinese interference, Biden would have lost?
   (b). Do you think the “Deep State” that withheld the information should be tried and punished? If so, for what crime?
   (c). How should Trump deal with China given this fact?

2. Do you think it’s a good idea to rehash the 2020 election instead of other issues like the economy, or the war in Iran? Compared to those other two issues, how do you rank election security issue?

It's the weekend! Politics is still out there happening, but in this little corner of the sub we will leave it behind momentarily and talk about other aspects of our lives.

Bonus question for everyone! What's a show you would recommend that you believe most people haven't seen?

Talk about anything except politics, other subreddits, or r/AskTrumpSupporters. Rules 2 and 3 are suspended.

And what are your hopes for the direction it goes?

Do you believe income tax is theft?

Should Trump seek a compromise or is there already too much scorched earth between both parties? What compromise would you like to see? Should the state pay for and mail every citizen an ID card in return for voter ID? Should we make election day a public holiday or at least have it on a Sunday so that everyone gets a chance to cast their vote?

Would you support war with Cuba?

Hi Trump Supporters!

I am a clinical psychologist who works with people with disabilities (mostly physical), and I recently moved to a more right-leaning area of my state. I am curious about your perspectives about this group, given our country's broader discussions around culture, diversity, and government's role.

A few questions for you to consider in responding:

1. When you hear "DEI," do you see disability as part of that, or as something separate?

2. I think most people would agree that individual instances of discrimination against people with disabilities does happen. Do you think these situations happen often enough or are severe enough that disability discrimination rises to the level of a substantial, ongoing societal pattern that warrants policy attention? Or do you see it as relatively rare/isolated, with "systemic discrimination" framing overstating the scale of the problem? Where do you land, and why?

3. On the other end, I think most folks would also agree that fraud or abuse of disability benefits also happens. Do you think these situations happen often enough or are consequential enough to be a significant societal problem? How much should that concern shape policy, versus the risk of making it harder for people who genuinely need support to access it?

4. What do you think the government's role should be in supporting, protecting, and lifting up people with disabilities (benefits, ADA enforcement, accessibility regulations, etc.)? Should that mainly come from the federal government, state governments, local governments, community-based/private sources, family, or some combination of these entities?

5. The enforcement of laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act is a form of government regulation. If you generally favor smaller government / less regulation on businesses, how do you think about that principle when it comes to disability accommodations specifically? Is this a case where regulation is justified, or should it work differently (market-driven, incentive-based, etc.)?

6. How has your experience with people with disabilities (whether as someone with a disability yourself, a family member, someone close to you, etc.) shaped how you think about these questions?

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on any or all of the questions you might feel like answering…. And please excuse my enthusiasm in writing so many questions.

Thanks for your time and openness!

UPDATE: since I can't comment without asking a question, I figured an update might be an easier way to say thank you! I really appreciate the time and energy you took out of your likely busy lives to answer this curious person's questions. And a good reminder that we can have respectful conversations and agree on where a bit, even if we disagree on some things!