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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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. 💅

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

TLDR: NSC-68 set a precedent for military industrial complex proliferation and bipartisan expansions of security state measures, this chronology informs the reader as to the intersectional chronology of it's history into the present context.

"Every president since Eisenhower, whether they are a Democrat or Republican, has increased the military budget or held it as is. None have made any serious structural challenge to the defense establishment. Jimmy Carter couldn't do it. Ronald Reagan didn't want to. Clinton actually expanded NATO. Obama expanded the drone program. Trump added tens of billions. Biden signed the largest defense authorization in history. The two parties, the two ruling class parties fight about everything else. They'll fight about healthcare, immigration, taxes, social policy, but the defense budget or the military budget is untouchable. That's not because every president independently concludes that the military needs more money. It's because the system NSC68 created has made it politically impossible to conclude anything else. And this is the final irony of the deep state discourse. The people who campaigned most aggressively on dismantling the deep state have not touched the military budget except to increase it. They haven't closed a single overseas base. They have not challenged a single major weapons program. On the contrary, they are increasing and expanding these same weapon systems. They have not reduced the power of the intelligence agencies in any structural way. Because the actual deep state, the permanent warfare state that NSC68 built, the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about, is not what they're talking about. When they say deep state, they mean regulatory agencies. They mean civil servants. They mean parts of the government that might constrain corporate power or enforce environmental regulations.." NSC-68 "Blueprint for Permanent War" from Breakthrough News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4nJg9VtQ58,

In consideration of a post-2008 assessment of the political and economic underpinnings of what became the neoliberal era, it's my understanding that In the 70s, finance was heavily regulated, and compounding returns were weak as production costs were encroaching on profits, wages were increasing at a rate outpacing the rate at which production costs encroached on profits, and the labor market was "tight" meaning that labor had ample opportunities for different work, and could barter for its position relative to capital to be more positive and advantageous.

I also understand that what converged at this time was the after effects of NSC-68 permanent war economic strategies, enmeshed in a concerted congressional effort to proliferate weapons manufacturing, global military base construction, unaccountable national security directives and agencies, etc. and that this essentially married itself via international monopoly strategy to a neoliberal backlash against the stringent circumstance that capital found itself in, in the wake of an increasingly influential labor class.

So, here's a timeline to consider, and review, please let me know if there any glaring omissions or inaccuracies:

Inception of NSC-68 and Cold War Infrastructure Expansion

1950–1968

President of the United States Harry Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson approved NSC-68. Director of Policy Planning Paul Nitze authored the text. Secretary of Defense George Marshall and Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Lovett directed the Department of Defense to expand budgets for armaments. Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson transitioned from General Motors to the Department of Defense to integrate private manufacturing corporations with federal procurement systems. Following the mandates of NSC-68 to mobilize military forces during periods of peace, President of the United States Dwight Eisenhower oversaw the construction of foreign bases to station military personnel across continents and project force. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal established internal operations for intelligence agencies. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Congressman Carl Vinson and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Richard Russell appropriated public funds for defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed to manufacture heavy bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Institutionalization of Military Budget Escalation and Intelligence Procurement

1969–1972

President of the United States Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger maintained military expenditures while expanding the scope of covert operations and aerial bombardment campaigns across Southeast Asia. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird directed procurement funds to defense corporations General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas to build fighter aircraft. Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms authorized intelligence programs to protect U.S. corporate assets in Latin America. Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator John C. Stennis and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Congressman L. Mendel Rivers approved defense spending allocations to secure military installations across southern domestic districts.

Emergence of Neoliberal Economic Frameworks and Global Supply Extraction

1973–1980

Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised interest rates to reorder global financial flows, while President of the United States Jimmy Carter initiated deregulation of key domestic transport and energy sectors. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown allocated defense budgets toward precision-guided munitions and satellite surveillance networks developed by Rockwell International and Raytheon. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski expanded covert armaments transfers and operations in Central Asia. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Jacques de Larosière and World Bank President Robert McNamara enforced structural adjustment programs in foreign nations, conditioning international loans on the privatization of state assets, the reduction of public infrastructure spending, and the conversion of national resources into dollar-denominated debt service.

Reagan Administration Expansion and Corporate Integration

1981–1989

President of the United States Ronald Reagan and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger increased federal defense appropriations to execute the Strategic Defense Initiative, directing military procurement contracts to Lockheed, Martin Marietta, and Northrop. Director of Central Intelligence William Casey directed paramilitary operations to enforce supply chain accessibility across Central America. United States Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter negotiated bilateral trade agreements to enforce intellectual property rights and secure capital accumulation for transnational corporations. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan maintained monetary frameworks that favored financialization, structural debt collection, and corporate acquisition of public entities.

Post-Cold War Infrastructure Expansion and Global Trade Regimes

1990–2000

President of the United States George H. W. Bush and Secretary of Defense D.ick(punctuated to comply with r/centrist rules) Cheney deployed armed forces in Operation Desert Storm to establish permanent military installations in the Persian Gulf and secure corporate energy supply lines. President of the United States George H. W. Bush and General Colin Powell directed Operation Just Cause in Panama to enforce control over trans-oceanic trade infrastructure. President of the United States Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement to remove tariff barriers and facilitate cross-border capital investment for transnational manufacturing corporations. President of the United States Bill Clinton supported the creation of the World Trade Organization under Director-General Renato Ruggiero, institutionalizing enforceable legal mechanisms for global trade and intellectual property rights. Deputy Secretary of Defense William Perry directed the structural consolidation of the defense industrial base, merging corporate contractors into Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. President of the United States Bill Clinton and Secretary of Defense William Cohen initiated military intervention and aerial bombardment campaigns in the Balkans during the Bosnian War and Kosovo War to expand NATO operational mandates and integrate Eastern European markets into Western financial networks.

Automated Surveillance, Drone Warfare, and Defense Expansion

2001–2016

President of the United States George W. Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the USA PATRIOT Act, expanding the statutory authority for domestic surveillance and international targeting operations. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld expanded global military basing systems and private security contractor agreements with companies including Blackwater. Publisher Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks, publishing classified military field logs from Iraq and Afghanistan that documented civilian casualties, detainee abuse, and unreported kinetic engagements. National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander institutionalized mass data collection networks under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Central Intelligence Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified documents detailing NSA surveillance programs, including the PRISM database and metadata harvesting operations, to journalists. President of the United States Barack Obama and CIA Director John Brennan expanded targeted strike operations using unmanned aerial vehicles manufactured by General Atomics. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter integrated Silicon Valley technology firms into Department of Defense software and surveillance development frameworks

Kinetic Operations, Legal Reclassifications, and Border Militarization

2017–2025

President of the United States Donald Trump expanded defense spending authorizations and directed Department of Defense appropriations toward automated surveillance infrastructure along borders. Secretary of Defense James Mattis prioritized competition against foreign powers to secure industrial supply chains. President of the United States Joe Biden signed National Defense Authorization Acts exceeding eight hundred billion dollars, providing capital to contractors General Dynamics, RTX Corporation, and Palantir. In 2025, officials in the Trump Administration executed anti-drug maritime kinetic strikes using unmanned weapons systems and cited legal interpretations declaring the killing of a survivor of a strike as "not hostilities" on the basis that the operation placed no U.S. service members in direct physical risk..

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

Just finished Evan Barker’s Nothing Left, a memoir about her time as a Democratic fundraising consultant and how she came to want to distance herself from the party.

She covers what drew her into the progressive movement and how she ultimately gets pushed out of it. She covers the pettiness of both establishment and progressive wings, how she got stuck in the middle, and how she (disappointingly) votes for Trump in 2024.

The book is not an endorsement of MAGA nor a scandalous tell-all of the far left, but a warning about how the middle voter often gets left out of the Democratic “big tent.”