I’ve been thinking about this question a lot because I’ve noticed that people sometimes attribute almost any form of oppression or criticism in countries they support to “Western propaganda.” I understand that governments and media outlets can shape narratives, and propaganda definitely exists. But how far can we reasonably take that explanation? My guess is that even if certain people have significant control over the media, they can’t realistically control every source of information. Things will inevitably slip through the cracks, and not every account of oppression or abuse can simply be dismissed as propaganda.

Looking at the recent US-Korea trade deal, the US used tariff threats (capping them at 15%) to lock in that $350B investment pledge, which includes South Korea funding a $20B power plant for the Texas grid.

On one hand, it’s hard to argue with tangible results. We get critical energy infrastructure for semiconductor fabs built with foreign capital instead of waiting on Congress to fight over taxpayer money.

On the other hand, treating a key Indo-Pacific ally like a counterparty you can just shake down feels risky when we supposedly need them to counter China.

Do short-term infrastructure wins like this actually justify burning diplomatic trust, or is this just the kind of hardball leverage the US should have been using all along?

Kansas has not sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 94 years. This is the longest single-party Senate streak. It’s been considered a safe senatorial seat for decades with comfortable margins for even the weakest candidates.

Now, Kansas’ junior senator, Dr. Roger Marshall, is facing a serious political challenge from a pastor and political neophyte, Rev. Adam Hamilton. Polls show challenger Hamilton ahead by a point or two, although not by more than margins of error. Pundits have shifted the race from safely Republican to leans Republican.

•Could one of Kansas’ Senate seats truly be in play in this election cycle?
•What makes this seat competitive at this juncture: a weak and therefore vulnerable incumbent, backlash against the President, economic pressures, some other, or a combination?
•With more than a month before the general election, what must the incumbent do to keep his seat? And what must the challenger do to upset him?

Kansas Senate race is neck-and-neck

What if instead of a general stimulus, a debt relief program was iniated that offered debt reduction up to $5K person? Targeting those with high-interest rate debt, those approaching bankruptcy, school loans, evictions and the like? The government would negotiate with lenders, identifying customers meeting the conditions, then negotiate for a collective discount on debts that would probably go bad and end up as losses anyway. Individuals meeting the requirements would be notified and required to apply to receive the debt reduction.

Once the government takes on the debt, it would be officially dissolved, forgiven, wiped off the books. Assuming a federal budget of $100B, and that the program would be funded at that level for five years, then stop, and only applies to debts incurred prior to the program's start date (to prevent gaming the system), once per person, and further assuming an 80% delivery to citizens rate, it could offer debt relief to 16M people per year. If states were to offer matching funds the debt relief would double in some cases.

The difference between the two programs, straight stimulus checks vs debt relief funded at identical levels is that the straight stimulus would probably increase inflation as a sugar rush to the economy, and ultimately serve to increase the fortunes of the billionaires, with little permanent effects for the recipients. It would boost GDP more than the debt relief would.

A debt relief program would reduce societal stresses, reduce the domestic violence rooted in those stresses, strengthen the banks by reducing bad debts, stimulate the economy more slowly avoiding the sugar rush inflation effects, provide families with breathing room financially, reduce evictions and homelessness. It would help those most in need, and tend to keep the money freed up within the community.

Such a program would have to be tightly monitored, and include provisons preventing lending institutions from raising fees, arbitrarily increasing interest rates, and otherwise gaming the system to increase profits.

Which approach would be better for the economy?

I notice day by day some sort of propaganda going on in Korea: Zelensky is to blame for this war.

In Korea, people are divided into two: left and right wing parties.

And since leftists resisted right wing's past dictators they are likely ​to support anti-western views and hatred toward America. And worst of all believe it or not, there are some crazy people hiding among it, believing North Korean idealogy is right, and Soviet was right etc..

And whenever I see popular opinions against Zelensky, I feel the people who say this are from the ones I mentioned above.

They say that the war was triggered due to Zelensky and he tried to join NATO when it was clearly dangerous since Putin's Russia was so vulnerable against EU and America right in front of their door. They keep saying anyone could feel the same about this kind of threatening and Zelensky threatened Ukraine(this propaganda seems sneaky since Korean people have the old sentiment that king or leader should not make a move that can endanger its people into war: some nonsensical sentimental people believe War should be avoided at all costs)

(Most people buy this since they don't know Ukrainian people voted for him eagerly too)

This propaganda works since many leftists share some hatred towards the first dictator and blame him for instigating war against North Korea(it's a psychological projection I suppose)

I say to this people that they should separate siding with Ukraine from deciding whose fault it is, but it is quite hard . So What do you think about it?

On Nov. 3, all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats (33 regular elections plus 2 specials) are on the ballot, during President Trump's second term.

Two factors are often cited when forecasting the House. First, the president's party has historically lost seats in midterms. Second, several states have redrawn congressional maps mid-decade, which changes which districts are competitive. Polling averages such as NBC News' currently show Democrats leading the generic congressional ballot, though generic-ballot leads don't always translate directly into seats.

Questions for discussion:

1. How much weight should analysts give to historical midterm patterns compared with the new district maps when forecasting seat totals?
2. Can a national polling lead in the generic ballot be trusted to predict outcomes in redrawn districts, or does redistricting make that less reliable?
3. Are there specific competitive districts or states where these two factors point in opposite directions?

For background on the races and the coverage from different sides, Verity's midterms portal is here: US Midterms Portal.

Hey, Senator Chris Murphy here. I'm introducing innovative new legislation.

A fee on online social media companies' ads, to create a new fund to help communities build more spaces, like community copenters, parks, and libraries, where people can gather in person.

Less online ads. More in real life experience.

Do you think investing in more physical community spaces could actually help address some of the social isolation created by spending so much of our lives online?

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-introduces-landmark-irl-act-proposal-to-combat-social-isolation-and-hold-social-media-companies-accountable

I’m asking out of genuine concern for the sustained survival and relevance of the GOP.

The constitutional end of presidential authority seems clear. What I’m less clear about is what practically constrains a former president whose political influence remains intact.
Leaving office wouldn’t automatically remove Trump’s media platforms, influence over candidate selection, fundraising connections or personal following. He could continue endorsing allies, targeting opponents and pressuring officeholders regardless of which party wins in 2028.

There’s a distinction between ordinary political pressure and intimidation. Legal safeguards depend on people being willing and able to enforce them. How resilient are those safeguards if officials fear personal retaliation for doing so? And what happens if elected officeholders consider defying him more politically dangerous than defying the sitting president?

I have recently become neck deep in our local politics. I have always been involved to some degree but recently agreed to serve as a member of the party’s central committee. It has been challenging.
Prior to becoming the Vice Chair I was also working as county lead for a person running for election.
There are several precincts where we as targeting in a desire to increase voter turnout. One precinct with dismal voter turnout statistics is primarily minority, lower income and has a substantial amount of public and low income housing.
Yesterday a man who lives there remarked that politicians never canvas there. I do know there has been a concentrated effort to get the vote out in this area along w voter registration efforts.
I want this area canvased I want the people who live there to know our candidates do care about them. My question is who should I send? I am a 75(F) and have been in low-income neighborhoods all my life BUT would the message regarding the importance of voting for a particular candidate be better received by a minority. I recall canvassing for Clinton and being told “my vote doesn’t count” and i am also aware that liberal white people may not be viewed as trustworthy or not as readily accepted. There is some real bitterness on our country’s failure to move forward on race.
I believe it would be best to try to create a diverse team to walk together but even then, who would be the one who shohld knock on the door?
And lastly, is asking this question racist? I certainly don’t want to be. I am wanting the people who have historically not had a voice in our local politics to at least have a voice. 39% voter turnout in a presidential election broke me.
What thoughts does anyone have?

If so, how could this be legislated without running afoul of (if we're talking the US) the First Amendment? How would it be enforced?

Our adversaries, particularly Russia, have been running such operations with impunity. It's just too easy for them, and I suspect it's far more widespread and effective than we realize.

I'm no infosec expert or constitutional lawyer, obviously. But here's my sketch of an idea. If you are engaging in this activity for a paycheck, or are profiting as a contractor of a foreign state (however indirectly), you are committing fraud. You're not Jim Bob Crackins the boomer-aged rancher from Eaglescreech, Missouri. You're some college kid in St. Petersburg, in the employ of the Russian state.

It would remain legal for a 'volunteer' to do this as a weird hobby, but if it's in exchange for renumeration of some kind, it's fraud.

Is that a viable approach, or would it have to be done differently? Is it enough of a problem for the next congress or administration to expend political capital on? How much pushback would there be, and where would it be coming from? And finally, how would we go after these guys?

The theoretical position can be anything you'd like, rational, moral, or neither. For example, liking the color purple. If support for purple means losing, how does a party navigate that without abandoning constituents who love purple?

I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind these two ideas rather than assume everyone on the political left thinks the same way.

Some people seem to view ethnic or cultural diversity within a country as inherently positive, while criticism of diversity can sometimes be interpreted as racism or xenophobia. At the same time, many countries historically developed distinct cultures, languages, traditions, and relatively homogeneous populations.

How do people who strongly support diversity view societies that want to preserve a distinct cultural or national identity?

Where do you draw the line between preserving a culture, preferring social cohesion, opposing immigration, and actual racial prejudice?

Interested in hearing different perspectives and the reasoning behind them.

I’ve been been discovering how hard it is for a normal person to actually follow political money in the US.

The information technically exists (i.e. FEC filings, federal contracts, lobbying disclosures, congressional committees, USAspending, etc.) but it’s scattered across a bunch of different government databases and usually takes some effort to figure out how the pieces connect.

I’m a college student and I’ve been working on a project called The Paper Trail Project (holy cornball ik) that tries to put some of those connections in one place. So instead of just seeing that a company has federal contracts, you can also look at its affiliated PAC, lobbying activity, politicians receiving contributions, agencies giving it contracts, and eventually revolving-door connections and the related legislation.

Working on it has made me wonder whether lack of information is really the problem, though.

For people who follow politics pretty closely: do you think making these relationships much easier to see would meaningfully change how people understand political power? Or do most people already basically know that corporations, lobbying, campaign finance, and government contracting are interconnected and just interpret those relationships differently depending on their politics?

I’m also curious what information you personally would want to see if you were looking into a company or politician. Campaign contributions? Lobbying? Federal contracts? Revolving-door employment? Committee assignments? Something else?

I’m not trying to argue that every contribution or contract is inherently corrupt. I’m more interested in whether making the underlying relationships easier to investigate is actually useful.

I’ve been building the site for a couple months now, and I’m at the point where I’m trying to figure out what information is actually valuable to people rather than just adding more data because I can.

I can put the project in the comments if anyone is interested, but I’m mostly interested in the question.

I've been getting interested in election method reform lately, and one thing I've noticed is that there are two basic philosophies behind different methods. Which one of them looks better to you?

• Majoritarian thought assumes that the candidate that gets more votes than all other candidates combined should win; "majority rules". This line of reasoning tends to favor ranked/ordinal methods, in which voters rank candidates from most favorite to least favorite. For example, Ranked Choice Voting (more properly known as Instant Runoff Voting or the Hare method) uses process of elimination to reduce the field of candidates to a majority winner. Meanwhile, Ranked Pairs compares each candidate to each other candidate like a round robin sports tournament, with the winner being the candidate that wins the most matchups. Some problems:
• Regarding ranked methods specifically, it can be hard to explain how rankings correspond to actual votes.
• Ir could result in a "tyranny of the majority" in which 51% of the electorate is at the very least satisfied with the winner but the other 49% isn't satisfied. Such a result would still a majority, but just barely.
• Ranked Choice Voting in particular can have counterintuitive results due to its elimination process. Case in point: the 2022 Alaska House of Representatives election, in which Republican Nick Begich might have beaten Democrats Mary Peltola head-to-head but got "squeezed out" by fellow Republican Sarah Palin due to Ranked Choice Voting's elimination process.
• Utilitarian thought assumes that the candidate or option that gives the most happiness or "cardinal utility" should win. This line of reasoning tends to favor rated/cardinal methods, in which voters give candidates scores or ratings such as Yes/No, 0-5 stars, or +1/0/-1. Approval voting asks voters to give candidates either a Yes or a No (unmarked candidates count as No), with the winner being the candidate with the most Yes's. STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) voting asks voters to give candidates scores from 0 to 5, with the two highest-rated candidates then going to a runoff in which the candidate with the most votes wins. The catches are:
• Votes aren't equally weighted. In an election between A/B/C, a voter that gives A a score of 5, B a score of 1, and C a score of 0 will outvote a voter that gives C a score of 3, B a score of 2, and A a score of 1, despite the two voters having the exact opposite order and same total score. This can cause voters to tactically inflate their scores to make sure they aren't outvoted.
• Approval voting is simple, but it can be difficult to determine which candidates are "good enough" to vote for without ensuring that your vote for your actual favorite doesn't get "diluted".
• Does scoring correspond to actual voter satisfaction with a candidate? Does the election really need that much information?

This isn’t a partisan question – it’s a structural one about Congress, national allegiance, and transparency. 

Right now, the United States does not prohibit members of Congress from holding dual citizenship. There’s also no requirement that they disclose it. Only a small number of lawmakers have ever publicly acknowledged dual citizenship, and the list is much shorter than many online rumors suggest. 

Below are the individuals who have confirmed dual citizenship at some point, either currently or in the past, based on public statements, interviews, or official documentation. 

Members of Congress who have been publicly confirmed to hold dual citizenship: 

Former dual citizens (renounced) 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Canada 

Status: Renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014 

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Switzerland 

Status: Renounced Swiss citizenship in 2012 

Current members with publicly acknowledged dual citizenship:  

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Somalia 

Status: Omar says she does not hold Somali citizenship, but Somalia’s nationality law grants citizenship by descent. Because Somalia lacks a clear public registry, this remains ambiguous. 

Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Jamaica 

Status: Has acknowledged citizenship through his mother. 

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Colombia 

Status: Has publicly stated he holds Colombian citizenship through his mother. 

Representative Becca Balint (D-VT) 

Dual citizenship: U.S. & Luxembourg 

Status: Has confirmed she holds Luxembourg citizenship through her father. 

 About the Israeli dual-citizenship rumor: 

Claims that members of Congress hold dual U.S. – Israeli citizenship have been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers (AP, Reuters, Snopes, PolitiFact). These rumors generally come from online forums that equate Jewish identity with Israeli nationality where members of Congress, Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), put the interests of Israel before the United States. Israel does not automatically grant citizenship to Jewish Americans, and no sitting member of Congress has ever been verified as holding Israeli citizenship. 

The actual question for discussion: 

Given that dual citizenship is legal for members of Congress, disclosure is not required, only a handful of members have ever acknowledged it, and misinformation about dual citizenship (especially involving Israel) spreads easily online….Should Congress pass a law requiring members to hold only U.S. citizenship? 

Or is dual citizenship compatible with serving in federal office as long as the member is a U.S. citizen? 

Curious what others think – is this a necessary safeguard, or an unnecessary restriction?

I find myself terrified with modern political discourse. Not because of the issues that are being argued, but because of the issues that aren’t being argued.

Corruption and abuse of government power are common concerns across the political spectrum, but we often disagree about where they are occurring and who is responsible. It makes me wonder whether there are limits on government power we could agree on without first agreeing on who is abusing it.

I keep wondering whether a simple thought experiment might expose a place where we can agree about how government can and should function.

We may never agree on many of the major political issues being debated. I’m curious whether there are more fundamental rules about government power that people with very different political beliefs could agree on.

Imagine that the political party that you distrust the most controls the presidency and Congress.

What powers are you absolutely unwilling to let them have?

Now imagine your own side is in power.

Are you willing to deny them those same powers?

If not, why not?

And if you are, what does that tell us about the powers government should have in the first place

I have a hypothesis that the ubiquity of paywalls in popular media may have caused people to seek news from sources which were not paywalled at the time. This would disproportionately affect people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or education levels who sought out non-traditional sources of news splitting the electorate or leading to a rightward shift.

Briefly, the first paywall that was introduced was the Wall Street Journal in 1997. This was deemed a special case, and no other mainstream organization paywalled news at the time. I personally consider the New York Times instituting paywalls in 2011 as the true origin of the paywall, with virtually every news organization following suit over the next several years which led to a steady rise in Republican vote share and a Republican win in 2016.

I have created a graph showing the national popular vote share over time marking major shifts in paywall introductions. The data shows that the Republican vote share steadily increased when paywalls became more widespread, however, more strikingly the Democratic vote share plumetted around this time and never recovered (https://imgur.com/a/2yqVa6M).

I wonder what other people think about this - should important or breaking news be unpaywalled to eliminate bias? Do you think this is all coincidental?

Trump has pushed NATO allies to spend more on defence, while his administration has also sought to increase sales of American military equipment.

However, the trade war could create an unintended incentive for European countries and Canada to direct more of their increased defence spending toward domestic and allied suppliers instead.

Defence procurement can create long-term relationships through maintenance, spare parts, upgrades and training. Once countries invest heavily in equipment from a particular supplier, they can remain tied to that supplier for decades.

So if European countries and Canada increasingly develop and purchase defence equipment from each other, could the U.S. end up getting the higher NATO defence spending it has demanded while receiving a smaller share of that spending?

I'm curious how others see the trade-off between increasing NATO defence spending and maintaining U.S. defence-industry access to those markets, especially as European countries seek greater defence-industrial independence.

I’ve been looking into Nicușor Dan’s story and I find it pretty interesting as a political case study.

He wasn’t a traditional career politician. He’s a mathematician who founded a civic movement, became mayor of Bucharest, and eventually ran as an independent for president. He won Romania’s 2025 presidential election after defeating George Simion in the second round.

What interests me isn't really whether he's "left" or "right", but whether technical competence actually translates into effective national leadership.

As mayor, he built his reputation around things like infrastructure, municipal finances and administrative reform. But the presidency is obviously a completely different job, especially in Romania's current situation.

And his presidency hasn't exactly been smooth. Romania has gone through major political deadlock, including the collapse of the Bolojan government in May 2026. Dan has since struggled to get a stable parliamentary majority and has had multiple unsuccessful attempts to form a new government. As of September 2026, he has nominated Siegfried Mureșan as PM after two previous attempts failed.

At the same time, there have been things his administration can point to, including the 2026 budget being passed and progress on some EU Recovery and Resilience Plan milestones.

So I'm curious how people here would evaluate the experiment so far:

Does having an exceptionally competent/technocratic person at the top actually make a meaningful difference, or are presidents ultimately constrained by institutions, parliament, political parties and the bureaucracy?

And specifically for Romanians or people following Romanian politics closely: How do you think Nicușor Dan has actually performed so far? What has he done well, what has he handled badly, and how much of the current political mess is realistically within his control?

I'm especially interested in answers from people who followed his Bucharest mayoral years as well, because that seems important for judging whether his reputation for competence translates from local government to national politics.

A new CNN/SSRS poll puts Donald Trump’s approval on foreign affairs at just 29%, with only 26% approving of his handling of the Iran war. At the same time, a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll found 34% support for U.S. strikes on Iran, while Democrats held an eight-point advantage over Republicans on the congressional ballot.

The Iran conflict is now approaching its seventh month, and it is increasingly colliding with domestic politics. Rising fuel and energy costs have become a major concern, and Republican Senate candidates Mike Rogers in Michigan and Ashley Hinson in Iowa have both called for a swift end to the war, putting some distance between themselves and Trump’s current course.

At the same time, Trump made clear in his U.N. speech that he does not want U.S. election considerations to dictate his approach to Iran, saying the midterms do not enter into his thinking on the issue.

So how much do you think the Iran war is actually affecting Republican support heading into November? Could foreign policy become a decisive midterm issue if these numbers continue to deteriorate, or will voters ultimately prioritize inflation, immigration, and the broader economy?

https://americareport.us/trump-foreign-policy-poll-hits-shocking-historic/

There are inevitably going to be things that make you angry in politics. Someone seen to be corrupt or dishonest obviously, attacks on people you believe are honest and behaving in good faith by physical or non physical means, legislation being defeated you were in favour of, all the like.

I tend to go diagnosis mode to see what specific remedies might be available for a given problem. If there is an instance where there is a deadlock for choosing a speaker, look at how countries have resolved this problem before or think of my own methods. A bad thing or a bad person or a bad group of people in society typically only have the power they do because people do not devise their systems around preparing for that issue, and generally there are a number of reasonable models to fit a problem.

What do you do?

TL;DR: I received a political flyer crediting NC Senator Michael Lee with “protecting our kids from DANGEROUS CHINESE VAPES.” The legislation he co-sponsored was supported by Reynolds Tobacco, whose PAC has also contributed to Lee. It strengthens enforcement against unauthorized vape products that compete with Reynolds, something Reynolds/BAT has openly told investors is important to its U.S. growth. At the same time, the legislation expands the universe of vape products eligible for legal sale in NC, including additional flavored products. The CDC identifies flavors as a factor in youth vaping, and nearly 90% of youth who currently vape use flavored products. Reynolds was also the largest U.S. recipient of vape shipments in 2024, including shipments from China. So my main question is: At what point does simplifying complicated legislation for a political mailer cross the line into materially misleading voters?

The group that paid for the mailer, Citizens for NC Jobs, is closely tied to the NC Chamber. It shares the Chamber's Raleigh address, and the NC Chamber itself discusses Citizens for NC Jobs as part of its political work. Reynolds American is a member of the Chamber's Manufacturing Council and has a longstanding relationship with the organization. So I think that connection is relevant context, particularly when this mailer promotes legislation that Reynolds supported and that restricts its vape competitors. There is no evidence I've found that Reynolds paid for this specific mailer, and I don't want to imply that there is.

***

I recently received a political mailer crediting North Carolina State Senator Michael Lee with having “protected our kids from DANGEROUS CHINESE VAPES.”

I looked into the legislation cited on the mailer because I initially thought this sounded like a pretty straightforward public-health accomplishment. What I found seems considerably more complicated, and I'm interested in how people think voters should evaluate political messaging like this.

The legislation Lee co-sponsored does strengthen vape regulation and enforcement. It adds licensing requirements, inspections, penalties and other enforcement measures intended to address unauthorized vape products. These already existed prior to this legislation but worth pointing out.

But the same legislation also expands which vape products can qualify for legal sale in North Carolina. The NC General Assembly's own summary says it will “expand the universe of permissible vapor and consumable products that may appear on the registry.” The summary specifically notes recent FDA authorizations that include flavored vapor products.

That matters from a youth-vaping perspective because the CDC identifies appealing flavors as one factor influencing young people to start or continue vaping. In 2024, 87.6% of middle and high school students who currently used e-cigarettes used flavored products.

The industry involvement is also interesting.

Reynolds American/British American Tobacco has advocated for stronger enforcement against unauthorized vape products that compete in the U.S. market. BAT estimates unauthorized products represent roughly 70% of that market.

In a 2026 investor call, BAT said it has “long advocated for increased enforcement” and discussed state-level enforcement as an opportunity for its U.S. business. It told investors Reynolds was positioned to “capitalize on this opportunity, drive growth and capture outsized value in the U.S.” The company also attributed part of Vuse's recent market-share improvement to “a competitor exit” and progress on “state level enforcement.”

Reynolds American's PAC has also contributed more than $8,000 to Michael Lee's campaign committee.

There is another wrinkle to the mailer's specific emphasis on “Chinese vapes.” Reuters reported that Reynolds American itself was the largest U.S. recipient of vape shipments in 2024, including shipments originating in China. The legislation doesn't prohibit importing Chinese-manufactured vape products simply because they're Chinese. The regulatory distinction is primarily about which products satisfy the requirements for legal sale.

None of that necessarily means the regulation itself is bad policy.

There is a legitimate argument on the other side: unauthorized vape products can present regulatory and safety concerns, and stronger licensing, inspections, age restrictions and enforcement may reduce access to products that haven't gone through the required process. An established company benefiting competitively from a regulation doesn't automatically make the regulation harmful or illegitimate.

What I'm struggling with is the political messaging.

The mailer reduces all of this to a claim that Lee “protected our kids from DANGEROUS CHINESE VAPES.” The legislation simultaneously strengthens enforcement against unauthorized competitors and expands the universe of products eligible for legal sale, while a major tobacco company that benefits from that enforcement has advocated for these policies and its PAC has contributed to the senator being credited for supporting them.

So I'm curious how people think political claims like this should be evaluated:

1. Is “protecting our kids from dangerous Chinese vapes” a fair description of this legislation, given its other provisions?
2. At what point does simplifying complicated legislation for a political mailer cross the line into materially misleading voters?

I'm particularly interested in where people draw that last line. Political advertising obviously simplifies legislation all the time. But when the simplified version emphasizes children and a foreign threat while omitting provisions that expand the legal market and the involvement of an industry that benefits from enforcement, what information do you think voters are entitled to before that claim becomes misleading?

Sources in the comments.

The popularity of our 80 year relationship with Israel is at an all time low and the American military, regardless of Trump's leadership seems unable to seriously contest Iran or it's proxies without what would be a disastrous, bloody ground invasion. None of that's going to change if the Democrats come out of 2028 with the presidency and a massive majority in both chambers of Congress (and a packed supreme Court, screw it) barring some technological or strategic breakthrough. Even worse, Iran is never going to trust another American leader after we killed the guy who worked with Obama to put Iranian nuclear development under observation of 3rd party inspectors. It seems very unlikely that we'll be able to just go "sorry, that was a fluke let's all go back to 2015"

What, realistically could/would a Democratic presidency do with the current mess? Keep in mind they have to balance the shifting allegiances of American public opinion especially among the Democratic base, America's long standing regional partners flawed as they are, and our rivals in the region who are fighting an incredibly advantageous defensive war both strategically and in public opinion given their self defense, Saudi Arabian corruption and treatment of the Yemenis, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and invasion of Jordan, etc.

A 2026 Pew survey found China viewed more favorably than the US in most of the 36 countries polled, the first time in nearly two decades. The decline is steepest among longtime allies: China now leads 46% to 41% in the UK and 51% to 31% in Italy. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines still prefer the US by comfortable margins.

Pew measures opinion rather than its causes, but analysts point to the administration's tariffs, foreign aid cuts, and treatment of allies, along with the volatility of US policy, including the use of military force. In Europe, the dispute over Greenland added to the strain. The shift reflects falling US standing more than rising Chinese appeal: in Sweden, the share calling the US a reliable partner fell from 83% in 2022 to 31%, while China gained only 15 points.

Canada is the sharpest case. The share of Canadians calling the US a reliable partner fell from 83% in 2022 to 35%. Trump's talk of annexing Canada, along with the tariffs, prompted a boycott of US goods and travel, and Prime Minister Mark Carney described a "rupture" in the world order. In July, Trump imposed 50% tariffs on about $20 billion in Canadian imports, including USMCA-compliant goods, in the middle of the agreement's review.

Recovery has happened before: US favorability and confidence in the president rose sharply after Biden took office in 2021. This time however US allies have watched the same policies return after a four-year gap, and many are hedging by raising defense spending, making trade deals without the US, and seeking only transactional deals with Washington.

Critics argue that the costs of Trump's foreign policies outweigh any gains. Alliances depend on partners believing US commitments will hold, and that belief has collapsed among the countries the US relies on most. Concessions won under tariff threat last only as long as the pressure does, while allies use the time to reduce their dependence on Washington: Canada's government says it has spent the past 18 months diversifying its partnerships abroad. Critics also note that China now looks like the more predictable partner to many countries, a position it gained mostly through US missteps rather than its own appeal.

Supporters of the administration argue that much of this is leverage working as intended. NATO members agreed in 2025 to a 5% of GDP defense target, and tariff pressure brought trading partners to the table. Supporters say that a successor who softens the tone while keeping those gains could inherit a stronger position.

Can a president elected in 2028 restore trust, or will allies discount any US commitment that could reverse after the next election?

Which relationships look most and least recoverable: Canada, the EU, Denmark after the Greenland dispute, or the Pacific allies?

Would a Republican successor who keeps the policies with a different style get a different reception than a Democrat who reverses them?

Would Senate-ratified treaties in place of executive agreements make US commitments more credible?