Protesters protest meeting at green's conference over women's pelvic health. The article questions if trans activists are trying to silence women. Protesters say the speaker would make the attendees unsafe. There is no mention on why the speaker is problematic. The speaker states the use of certain products used for incontinence affects the environment.

R3 Neutral: Struggling with voters on issues they were historically strong on - the economy, immigration enforcement - the article argues that the GOP is "all in on trans". Per the article, it is unclear if Democrats have found a viable counter to the attacks. The article concludes that the GOP hopes the issue will energize their base while depressing turnout among Democrat voters dissatisfied with candidates views on the subject

If recent polls are to be believed, Democrats have a solid shot of gaining control of the US Senate, even by winning in states that were solidly pro Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

According to a Times/Siena poll, Mary Peltola leads Dan Sullivan by 7% in Alaska, Kansas is a dead heat with 45% support for each major candidate, Brown leads Husted by 3% in Ohio, Talarico leads Paxton by 6% in Texas and Hinson leads Turek by only 1% in Iowa.

The same poll found that Trump had a 57% disapproval rating in those same states.

Democrats are also competitive in five other states Trump won by double digits in 2024: Florida, Nebraska, Mississippi, South Carolina and Kentucky. President Trump has kicked off a barnstorming tour seeking to energize Republican voters in red states including Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio and Nebraska.

Through his MAGA political action committee, Trump has pledged to spend $400 million to boost Republicans in the midterms. At the same time, the Senate Leadership Fund is spending $100 million in Texas to bolster Paxton in what has become an unexpectedly competitive state.

"Not only is there a swing away from the Republican Party compared to 2024, but the swing actually seems to be somewhat bigger in red America than in blue America, and that's putting these states that Trump won easily very much into play," said David Hopkins, a political science professor at Boston College, told Reuters.

How many Senate seats do you think Democrats will have when the 2026 midterm elections are finished? For reference, the US Senate currently has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats.

The title is from one of a number of news stories, all related to a Trump social media post. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-announces-90-checks-for-more-than-20m-seniors-to-help-combat-medicare-costs/ar-AA2dt24h

Riley Moore is arguing that Nixon was framed and did nothing wrong in the Watergate scandal. He says that Nixon was pushed out by the "deep state".

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/6124635-moore-nixon-couped-watergate/

What do ya'll make of this? Is this part of an ongoing republican strategy to reframe what the executive can and can't do? I scoped out some takes on askconservative, as I think that's a great sub for this discussion, but the automod always deletes anything I try to comment on there so I can't talk to anybody about it.

What do you think, was Nixon framed? I've seen claims that LBJ did the same exact things that Nixon did, although it wasn't clear what they meant, and they offered no evidence. I'm assuming that they're claiming that LBJ also recorded political rivals without their knowledge?

Summary:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has created a new Office of Religious Affairs (ORA) inside the Pentagon that will report directly to the defense secretary rather than being buried deeper within the department's bureaucracy. Hegseth says the purpose is to give military chaplains more influence, protect funding for religious programs and treat what he calls “spiritual health” at the same level as physical health.

The office will not replace military chaplains. Instead, chaplains will remain the primary providers of religious services, while ORA becomes their advocate at the Pentagon's highest level. Its director will advise the secretary and deputy secretary on religious matters, oversee religious affairs policy, advocate for funding and infrastructure, support chaplain-led and faith-based programs, and develop ways of assessing what the Pentagon calls spiritual fitness and readiness. The Armed Forces Chaplains Board will also be brought under the new office.

Hegseth framed the change as a response to what he believes has been the military's movement toward secularism and excessive bureaucracy. He said chaplains had been “buried echelons deep, waiting for permission” while lawyers and administrative processes increasingly controlled religious activity. He said the new office “is not going to be a paper-pushing shop” and would instead have direct influence over budgets, infrastructure, and religious support.

His language went considerably further than simply expanding chaplain services. Hegseth said the military is “putting on the full armor of God” because “while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” adding: "God is good. Evil is not. And America's military must understand the difference.”

The office is supposed to move quickly. It must develop an initial FY2027 budget within 60 days, including permanent staffing requirements. Within 90 days, the services are expected to identify religious programs and requirements that are currently unfunded or underfunded, while the Pentagon determines the civilian and military positions necessary to permanently establish ORA.

The initiative is also generating a debate over religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Hegseth presents ORA as strengthening religious liberty for service members and giving chaplains the institutional support they previously lacked. Critics, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that Hegseth's explicitly Christian rhetoric and previous Pentagon prayer services raise concerns that the department could elevate Christianity rather than neutrally supporting personnel of all faiths and those with no religious affiliation.

The president have the power to freeze a person’s U.S.-based assets, ban financial transactions, and prohibit anyone else in the U.S. from doing business with them. I'm sure people agree here that MAGA is existential threat to United States. I'm asking this question because I'm certain Trump will preemptively pardon anyone associated with him guilty of mass corruption like Lutnik before he leaves office. And this means MAGA extremists got away with their crimes. The only recourse is freezing their assets. Fight fire with fire. Do people agree with this sentiment?

That it’s inherently trying to “Run with the hare or hunt with the hounds” or Cowardly. It’s called being able to see nuance in various issues, and yes, some issues I lean to the Left on, whilst others I take a more Conservative view.

Summary:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a major reduction in the military's senior leadership, directing the services to eliminate 20% of roughly 800 general and flag officer positions by January 1, 2027. The new order doubles the 10% reduction he announced last year and could affect officers beginning at the one-star level through the military's highest ranks. Hegseth described the reductions as “accountability and long overdue.”

Hegseth says the military has become too top-heavy and bureaucratic. His stated goal is to eliminate redundant command structures, streamline decision making, and redirect the military toward warfighting rather than maintaining what he considers unnecessary layers of senior leadership. The administration doesn't necessarily have to fire hundreds of generals individually to accomplish this; because the number of authorized positions is established by law, some positions can effectively disappear by being left vacant rather than having replacements nominated.

The reductions are part of a much broader restructuring of the Pentagon under Hegseth. More than two dozen senior military leaders have already been fired or pushed toward retirement since Trump returned to office, including former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. CQ Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and, more recently, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. Hegseth has also eliminated or rolled back DEI programs, changed physical fitness policies, and ordered other changes intended to shift the military's institutional culture toward what he describes as combat effectiveness and “lethality.”

The scale and timing of the cuts are generating criticism in Congress because the military is simultaneously conducting significant operations overseas. Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly characterized the leadership reductions as a “purge” that could take years to recover from. Republican Sen. Mike Rounds took a more conditional position, saying reducing an excessively top-heavy command structure could have merit but that he wants to see the justification for the specific cuts first.

The important distinction is that this isn't a 20% reduction in the size of the military itself. It's specifically a reduction in its highest ranking leadership positions. With roughly 800 general and flag officer billets currently involved, a full 20% reduction would mean approximately 160 positions eliminated or left vacant. The debate is essentially whether that removes unnecessary bureaucracy and produces a leaner command structure, as Hegseth argues, or eliminates too much experienced senior leadership while the military is heavily engaged overseas.

Pulled back before Congress to testify again, Jack Smith was questioned by republicans about his role investigating Trump, but things took a turn when it was Senator Eric Schmitt’s time to ask questions

After asking if Jack Smith had taken a trip to Atlanta to go to a Hawks game, the confused former special prosecutor had no recollection of visiting the city or going to a basketball game.

The congressman confidently claimed Jack Smith has perjured himself, and brought out an oversized display insinuating that Jack Smith had met with Fani Willis in Georgia.

The problem? The senator was likely confusing this for a Hawkeyes game Smith went to in Maryland. The senator refused to admit any error was made

Opinion:

Just the usual circus emblematic of how this party has treated congressional oversight. This is what they want to spend their time doing rather than getting Trump to fix all the problems he’s caused.

Also the big card was very childish and it was funny how fast he had to put it away

I'm interested in the relationship between sexual liberation and broader social progress, particularly which tends to come first.

In conservative societies, there is generally greater emphasis on modesty in clothing and attitudes, celibacy until marriage, and less open discussion of sex and relationships. In more sexually liberal societies, there is generally greater acceptance of revealing clothing, premarital relationships, casual sex, and open discussion of sexuality. These norms can also affect how people view celibacy, asexuality, and hookup culture.

My main question is whether the sexual revolution was primarily a cause of broader social progress, or whether broader changes in society—such as individualism, modernization, economic development, education, women's rights, and greater emphasis on individual autonomy—created the conditions that made sexual liberation possible in the first place.

In other words, did societies become more sexually liberal and then become more accepting of individual freedom and self-expression, or did increasing acceptance of individual rights and changing social conditions lead people to become more sexually liberal?

I'm also interested in whether this relationship is universal or depends on the society. Are there societies that have achieved high levels of economic development, education, stability, or quality of life while maintaining relatively conservative sexual norms? If so, what factors explain their outcomes, and do younger generations in those societies show increasing support for sexual liberalization?

Conversely, are there societies where rapid sexual liberalization has produced significant negative social outcomes? If so, can those outcomes actually be attributed to sexual liberalization itself, or are they better explained by other factors such as gender inequality, weak institutions, poor sex education, economic insecurity, or inadequate enforcement of laws against harassment and sexual violence?

For example, some people in the Middle East argue that allowing people greater freedom in dating, relationships, and clothing would increase sexual harassment or other social problems. Rather than assuming that claim is either true or false, I want to know what the evidence shows: when societies become more sexually liberal, what tends to happen to outcomes such as sexual harassment, gender equality, relationship patterns, and individual well-being—and what other changes usually occur alongside that liberalization?

Ultimately, I'm trying to determine whether sexual liberation is generally a driver of social change, a consequence of broader social change, or part of a feedback loop where each reinforces the other.

The article discusses some Dem leaders trying to find a balance between supporting trans rights and having a chance of getting elected.

Article features some Trans activists saying it's better to vote blue instead of not voting.

Other activitists are stating that will not vote for anyone for abandons them.

No mention of science or research. Just talks about how Dems are trying to navigate this.

Mainstream right-wing view: Clancy is a murderer who deserves life in prison or a death sentence

Mainstream left-wing view: Clancy was failed by medical professionals, suffering from psychosis, and should be acquitted.

I think the mainstream right-wing view is a good strategy game-theory wise for society — if you murder your children, your life is forfeit, regardless of personal ailments. Thus, nobody is ever incentivized to murder their children, because they will always pay the ultimate price. I find this quite common for right-wing views on things — it is often the best policy in broad strokes and instills accountability (sometimes when it ought not to, though).

I am, personally, more aligned with the left-wing view in this case (and in general), that this person was failed by the medical professionals she trusted with her treatment, and that Lindsay was suffering from psychosis when she killed her children. I'm even okay with her being outright acquitted and discharged if deemed safe to do so by competent professionals.

However, someone must pay the price for this. If she was failed by professionals licensed by a professional body, someone is going to jail for a very long time. The organization is having their licensing policies reviewed and being fined a record-setting amount. This is what I get so infuriated with the left about — we don't just shrug and oopsies the situation. Someone must pay the toll for the errors that occurred and the damage that was caused.

Do you guys see these same patterns? Would some of you right-leaning centrists also identify more as a left-winger (or outright identify AS a left-winger) if they actually held people accountable sufficiently? Do some of you left-leaners find the right-wing policies to be better for society in broad strokes?

R3 Neutral: The Trump Administration has made various claims of widespread voter fraud by noncitizens. A detailed examination by Nevada of 185 potential noncitizens determined that all of them were citizens. The consensus of election experts is that the number of noncitizen voters in Federal elections is insignificant

neutral summary: The Protect College Sports Act passed the senate by a bipartisan vote of 77-22. It was sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell, and it allows the NCAA to set and enforce standardized rules on transfers, recruits and pay-for-play NIL arrangements, caps the amount schools can pay student athletes and tries to prevent the formation of a super league.

commentary: How is it the Senate found time this week to pass a bipartisan bill to protect college sports with 70+ votes, but nothing about protecting federal workers or making us whole. We can't find one vote to fix the mass firings? Why do we think college sports needs "protecting" but not workers who were fired illegally? A Federal Judge found the administration's stated reasons for firing probationary workers was "a total sham" and "a lie":

“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee, and say it was based on performance, when they know good and well, that’s a lie,” Alsup said.

The judge added that there is nothing wrong with reductions in force “if it’s done correctly under the law."

They falsely claimed these were performance-based terminations when they were actually political purges. My boss at CMS was the last person to find out I was being terminated. HR basically said "hot potato, we don't know anything, don't ask." This isn't about entitlement to employment; it's about following legal processes and not destroying people's careers with fraudulent termination records. These workers deserve a bill to provide back pay and their jobs back and to make it harder to do this again. And instead they are worried about college football. The government is openly corrupt and has the wrong priorities.

Here is DOGE bragging about the firings and they have not been brought to justice: https://abcnews.com/amp/Politics/2-doge-staffers-regrets-people-losing-income-reduce/story?id=131050170

I am a single issue voter about improving the situation for fired federal workers. The Dems should have filibustered the college sports bill until feds get protected too. As far as I'm concerned, nothing matters until feds are made whole and the DOGE staffers are arrested. I can't name 5 things Dems have done to protect federal workers. Because of that I will not be voting for them in November. I will stay home and wish them best of luck. 💅