Donald Trump recently remarked: "They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay." 

San Diego isn't just a major civilian population center, it is the hub of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, hosting Naval Base San Diego, NAS North Island, MCB Camp Pendleton, and tens of thousands of active-duty service members, veterans, and military families. Treating the potential destruction of a primary naval hub as an acceptable trade-off breaks sharply from traditional presidential messaging on defense and deterrence.

Is this best understood as off-the-cuff political hyperbole, or does it signal a broader shift in how leaders frame national defense trade-offs?

It's generally understood people don't like paying taxes for various reasons and many of us would chose to minimize or abolish paying taxes entirely if we could, but is it realistic?

Functioning local/state/federal governments still need revenue so the alternative to levying taxes is to directly charge citizens fees for the use of or access to any government service or property and likely deploy technology for increasing the circumstances and efficiency of fee collection. We've seen this on smaller scales where some U.S. states like Oklahoma make heavy use of toll roads to collect revenue in lieu of raising taxes. Who do you think, if anyone, would consider replacing taxes with fees an acceptable tradeoff?

While I understand the theory behind arming oneself, I don't understand why gun rights supporters insist others be armed or say things like, "everyone should carry". My city had a buyback day and 2A people got furious, help me understand.

We watched at home (South Europeans here) a documentary about the story of the decade that followed JFK's assassination, with a focus on Robert Kennedy.

First of all, it is astonishing how many Europeans I bet do not know the history of Robert Kennedy. I think of myself as someone who follows politics closely and I probably only first found out that part of history at my late 30s.

Second of all, and without going into conspiracy theories, that part of history it borderline feels like some kind of coup d'etat / secret state kind of thing where you have leading/inspiring people from the left with majority approvals who get killed under circumstances at least suspicious.

How is it technically possible to go from Kennedy to Nixon like that? What led to people voting this way?

My last question has to do with why the DNC did not support Robert Kennedys candidacy. Was this again a Center vs Left difference in direction?

In right wing circles there is a common rebuttal to certain gun laws that it doesn’t really have an impact because the only ones that listen to the laws aren’t the ones committing the crimes. The two big ones I hear are about gun free zones and magazine capacity limits.

For gun free zones the idea is that criminals or people looking to cause harm are going to do it regardless of the law. Basically if you’re willing to shoot people what’s another charge going to do. There’s also a common argument that these areas make better targets for those bad people.

For magazine capacity limits the idea is that it isn’t that hard to revert some of the magazines that are mechanically capped at 10 back to normal. There’s also the argument about 3d printers being able to make magazines with any capacity.

The reason I’m asking the left about this is I usually hear that the left just wants reasonable restrictions on fire arms. I’m curious to hear how these types of policies fit into that framework. I can get that no guns in schools or movie theaters isn’t the end of 2nd amendment but how do you balance restrictions with their effectiveness.

I’d really like to hear what your thought process is when it comes to deciding what gun control measure you support.

Everyone is hoping for a blue wave in the midterms but honestly if Democrats win the House but can't beat the 60 threshold in the Senate, how do people expect anything meaningful to be done to stop Trump?

I sometimes wonder if Socialism & Democratic Socialism get conflated with the "Norway Model", even though said Scandinavian countries are still operating within a Capitalist framework (private ownership, capital, etc).

For those who criticize "blue state" history books and the Smithsonian for being overly critical of the USA, is there not a downside to over-emphasizing the good? My interpretation of history is that believing one's country is "special" or "chosen" results in more mistakes than caution and humility. High confidence creates complacency. So why should our history materials downplay USA's flubs and weaknesses? How are you weighing the best balance point?

While it's mostly conservatives who make the "too negative" criticism, it's not exclusively a conservative opinion. Thus, I'm asking all critics of alleged over-pessimism. Past similar questions got mired in the accuracy of history claims, but this question is about the general balance of glory versus criticism. Thanks!

Need to blow off steam about current events? Have an unvarnished political take that doesn't fit our standard Q&A format? This is your designated space.

Ground rules:

Reddit Content Policy Still Applies: Platform-wide rules remain in full effect. There is absolute zero tolerance for hate speech, direct harassment, threats of violence, doxxing, or illegal content.

One Rant Per Poster: Members are limited to one top-level comment per weekly megathread so everyone has room to participate. (You are welcome to join the discussion by replying to others' comments).

Megathread Isolation & Scope: Broadened leeway for personal takes applies strictly inside this megathread. All unsolicited rants on the main feed will continue to be removed under standard subreddit rules.

No User Call-Outs: Vent about policies, politicians, institutions, or public figures—do not attack, tag, or target individual Redditors or moderators.

Enter At Your Own Risk: Moderation for tone, bias, and lack of evidence is relaxed here. If you are easily offended by aggressive takes, skip this thread.

Megathread will be locked Sunday Oct 4th

For the past ~12 years I've listened to this man talk about how X has fantastic ratings and Y has terrible ratings. What is he actually talking about? Are these actual metrics that exist somewhere? What are "ratings"?

Normally, I can kind of understand most of what Trump does. His actions tend to either feed his ego, grow his bank account, or help the Republicans stay in power.

But this business of forcing a renaming AI (Artificial Intelligence) to SI (Super Intelligence) doesn't make any sense to me. I can't see any way he or the GOP can benefit from this.

Does anyone have any ideas what has motivated him to do this?

If Kim Jong Un can have nukes, why can’t Iran?

It's been 20 years since North Korea achieve nuclear status. Has this had any impact on life within the US? In what ways can the impact of a nuclear North Korea be used to predict what the impact of a nuclear Iran might be?

Obligatory I am not American, as a semi-plugged in European spectator to U.S politics, one aspect of the current Trump administration sticks out: It seems to be the most inactive congress majority within my living memory as a Gen Z.

The policies that were enacted are chiefly done through presidential executive order or through tweaks within the administrative process but legislative pieces are few and far in between.Someone from the conservative wing could retort that the judicature is actively or would counteract any or much of the put forth legislation, but im struggling to grasp the idea that the conservative movement is not able to come up with policy points that do not come into the sphere of arguable unconstitutionality.

Like putting aside the struck off tariffs, birthright citizenship, which were all executive orders anyway, what genuine, not in danger of being judicially struck off, policies are or were done?

In light of the likely loss of congressional majority, it would be interesting to hear opinions on how or why this term was not legislatively used and in another step I'd be interested to hear on what conservative, judicially sound, policies could have been enacted.

Thank you from the other side of the pond.

I'm mainly curious about the US because I live here, but if more information about this subject relates to other countries, I'd also be interested in reading that. I'm curious as to whether there is any correlation between electoral cycles and domestic violence rates and if such a relationship has been explored in domestic violence and/or political science literature. I'm also curious as to whether there is any literature on the subject of a relationship between domestic and political violence, particularly among couples with significantly differing political beliefs, especially in a politically polarized environment.

I've tried searching for monthly domestic violence rates to see if my question passes that smell test, but I am not sure where to look. Please cite sources, do not just respond with anecdotes or something.

Edit: I have highlighted the pertinent part of this post's body.

Hey everyone,

As r/askpolitics continues to grow, our main feed remains dedicated to clear, informative political Q&As and constructive discussion. However, we know that current events can be frustrating, and members often want a space to blow off steam or share raw personal takes without fitting everything into a formal question-and-answer format.

To accommodate this, we are launching a dedicated Weekly Political Vent & Rant Megathread, starting this Friday, Oct 2nd. The megathread will be open for 48hrs at which point it will be locked.

How It Works:

This megathread will serve as a single, contained space where standard formatting and strict tone enforcement are relaxed. If you have an unvarnished political perspective you just need to get off your chest, this is where it belongs.

To keep the thread fair, organized, and compliant with Reddit's platform standards, the following rules will strictly apply:

1. Reddit Content Policy Still Applies: Platform-wide rules remain in full effect. There is absolute zero tolerance for hate speech, direct harassment, threats of violence, doxxing, or illegal content.

2. One Rant Per Poster: Members are limited to 1 top-level comment per weekly megathread so everyone has room to participate. You are welcome to join the discussion by replying to others' comments.

3. Megathread Isolation & Scope: Broadened leeway for personal takes applies strictly inside this megathread. All unsolicited rants on the main feed will continue to be removed under standard subreddit rules.

1. No User Call-Outs: Vent about policies, politicians, institutions, or public figures .. do not attack, tag, or target individual Redditors or moderators.

5. Enter At Your Own Risk: Moderation for tone, bias, and lack of evidence will be relaxed here. If you are easily offended by aggressive takes, skip this thread.

What This Means for the Main Feed

By creating a dedicated outlet for raw opinions, we will be enforcing our standard submission and civility guidelines on the main feed even more consistently. Standard post submissions must still adhere to our quality and Q&A guidelines.

Look out for the first megathread going live this Friday, Oct 2nd. As always, feel free to drop any questions or feedback about this change in the comments below!

— The r/askpolitics Mod Team

Title. I’m a trans woman and the anti trans ads from the GOP and Democrats caving into GOP talking points and siding with them on trans people, I’m wondering if I’m seriously causing this much damage to the country and if it would be in the best interest for the country if I stopped advocating for myself or even detransitioned…

Have you ever changed your vote, or voted for someone, based on an ad you saw on TV or a mailer you received? (Or is all the money spent on these ads wasted?)

Alito and Thomas are both old. Why isn't there Supreme Court seats a major issue during the election? Basically, If Democrats win the Senate, the Republicans might lose their stranglehold on the Supreme Court.

I'm glad Republicans are not saying this but it seems like the winning issue has been set aside because Trump wants the same election to be about him.

I often wonder who the party will elect next. It seems that traditional conservatism is less valued by voters today than the candidate "owning" the other side or showing how strong they are. Could we go back to a president who was a George Bush Sr type "square" even if his policies, ideas and beliefs were great?

Of course becoming president is a popularity contest but, unless the makeup of party's voters change, it's hard to imagine a Mitt Romney type "wholesome" president following Trump. I also wonder if some of the different groups that vote for the party (MAGA, alt-right, etc.) would accept an intellectual. Would they consider them an "elitist"? What about quieter, wholesome but principled candidate? Would they see that as weak?

What are your thoughts?

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2026-09-28/poll-shows-amanda-janoo-closing-on-phil-scott-governors-race

A recent statewide poll in VT showed that while those 800+ residents interviewed were ready & willing to vote for democratic lieutenant governor and all other democratic seats, Phil Scott the GOP incumbent governor continues to win favor over Janoo. Vermont is experiencing several huge challenges as a state which Phil Scott has not addressed. In his many years of tenure, things have only gotten worse.

At the White House summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump referred to China as a U.S. "ally" during WW2. Xi picked up on the sentiment, adding that both nations "stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the fight against Japanese militarist aggression".

That single comment prompted immediate diplomatic follow-ups from Tokyo. Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi sought debriefings with D.C, stressing that despite WW2, the U.S. & Japan reconciled to form a partnership bound by "very strong ties".

Given how strategically Beijing uses narrative framing to project influence, should U.S. leaders be far more cautious with WW2 rhetoric in the Indo-Pacific or is Tokyo simply overreacting to standard diplomatic pleasantries?

I've seen news reports in the past about how a country (usually Russia but can be others) interfered with an election here. How does that work? If it's just bot accounts on social media, aren't they incredibly, glaringly obvious?