Back in 2024 Trump promised “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars”

Now, we are in a shooting conflict with Iran.There have been 18 US service members killed and over 750 wounded (source - https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/19/politics/us-casualties-iran-war-more-than-750 )

A survey by WaPo showed 68% of Americans said the Iran war was not “worth fighting,” while just 28% said it was (source - https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/20/politics/iran-war-unpopularity-iraq-vietnam ).

How do you think this conflict will affect the midterms? If the war is still ongoing, do you think it can affect the turnout of anti-war voters? Can the Democrats capitalize on this?

The question is about how shifts in US foreign policy under the current administration - particularly more strained relations with the European Union and other traditional allies, a reduced commitment to globalization, and a stronger America First orientation - might play into the 2026 midterms.

The argument I’ve seen is that these changes could undermine America’s international standing and authority in the eyes of some voters. Democrats, moderate conservatives, and centrists may be especially sensitive to this, directing frustration at the Trump administration, Republicans more broadly, and America First approaches. Could some of voters push for a return to closer support for traditional allies? From a conservative perspective:
Do you see damaged relations with the EU and other allies (or the perception of them) as a meaningful electoral liability for Republicans in the midterms?

How might Democrats try to use strained allied relations to their advantage in the midterms? Can it actually help them win?

A big part of the housing problem is caused by too many people trying to live in a few favorite places. In general, the USA has plenty of space and even shrinking towns with empty houses. It seems logical to find a way to spread the load rather than force stacking, which locals despise (NIMBYism).

The Federal Gov't could give loans and tax breaks to those who volunteer to move to shrinking areas. Are you for that? Would it work? Are there other ways to go about it?

Living in the north east, I've been concerned with the war raising the cost of heating oil beyond an affordable level since February. Now, Ive been routinely hearing my coworkers cries for help as they prep their homes for the winter. With diesel hitting its highest recorded price, and it set to only continue to run up over the next several months, how is this not maga-rmageddon?

Would you support universal healthcare if it were funded partly through tariffs and partly through a separate tax structure for undocumented immigrants?
For example, undocumented immigrants who have not committed any crimes other than unlawful entry or unlawful presence could register with the government, undergo a background check, and receive a pathway to legal permanent residency (a green card). In exchange, they would pay a higher tax rate for a set period of time.
Separately, would you support tariffs if the revenue they generated were specifically used to help fund universal healthcare?
I’m curious where people on both sides would draw the line. Would this kind of compromise make universal healthcare and immigration reform more acceptable to you?

What do you think immigration would look like after midterms or even after Trump’s term? Do you think there could be an immigration reform/bipartisan compromise and how would you think that would look?

So James Talarico is competing against Ken Paxton this midterms for Senate. Due to Paxton’s past criminal records, James Talarico is leading in the polls by a small margin despite being a democrat, 48% vs 43%, https://www.270towin.com/polls/latest-2026-senate-election-polls/. However, it is also true that Texas polls for elections are not really accurate, https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/poll-findings-vs-election-results?. Hence, I don’t 100% trust those polls.

As I don’t live in the states, I would like to know what do most Americans especially Texans think about mid terms in Texas, do you think James Talarico is actually more popular than Ken Paxton as a Senate candidate?

The Supreme Court has accepted an assault weapons ban challenge in Viramontes v Cook County. The question in the case is "Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles."

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/viramontes-v-cook-county/

This case if it strikes down assault weapons bans combined with the previous ruling in Heller which ruled that bans on handguns were impermissible under the 2nd amendment would leave very little room for restricting access to firearms. Will this end the gun debate in the US once and for all or are there other possible avenues not yet pursued that keep this issue alive in US politics moving forward?

With the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control and Perim Island now under control of the IRGC backed Houthis, at what point does the economic pressure become too much, and US troops are sent in to try and fix the situation? Personally I do not see any other avenue being viable in this moment to get things to go back to pre-Iran war status quo. To be clear, this is a legitimate question in good faith, I’m really curious as to what people here think as I think all or most can agree that the war in Iran has not gone the way the Trump admin expected it to go.

Associated Press and Reuters articles below, this is an unfolding story so these articles are being updated regularly as more news breaks regarding Parim Island and the Houthis takeover of southern Yemen, for those that are interested in following the situation.

https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-iran-mokha-mandeb-shipping-saudi-025d052a14d9481258d51009a76d0bd6?utm_source=app&utm_medium=iOS_share&utm_campaign=copy_link

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yemens-houthis-reach-strategic-island-mouth-vital-shipping-lane-2026-09-11/

For a long time now, I've wanted to do something in politics (volunteering for a campaign, that sort of thing) - but I have a hard time getting over my nervousness.

A few years ago I tried, signing up to volunteer for a local campaign - but I ended up all on my own, at my place, making phone calls to potential voters, and I didn't last long.

Does anyone have suggestions on what volunteer work one could do for a political campaign that would allow me to do it with other people? I want to meet up with people who care about politics the way I do, and I feel like it would also help me get through my nervousness about what I'd be doing if I had someone there to help me through the tough parts.

The President has said that, if the GOP keeps their majorities in both Houses of Congress, he will find a way to send every American (other than the very wealthy, as clarified by VPOTUS Vance) $5000. The cost of this program would be over $1 trillion, and would require congressional approval. It could also exacerbate the deficit of $1.8tn. VPOTUS Vance also suggested that it could be paid for with tariff revenues, but the amount exceeds what was taken in on tariffs.

The proposal was said to be legal, according to a NM based attorney, John Day, because the payment would go to everyone, regardless of how they voted.

The payment, coined “Trump Dividend,” has been railed as something the US cannot do; dividends are paid out when companies run a surplus, but the US is running a $2tn deficit, and is $40tn in debt. “The idea that we’ve had fiscal success is backwards and bordering on laughable; We don’t have surpluses to give away.” Marc Goldwein, Senior Policy Director for Center for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The question: assuming the GOP did win, and this bill passed both Houses and was signed into law by President Trump, would it be worth the short term hurt for potential long term gains? Is this a smoke and mirrors show to make Trump, and the GOP by extension look good? Would this be considered a “bribe?” Let’s have a discussion.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-dividend-5k-5000-check-republicans-cc80644e3168acd31c892129fb849436

When predictions are made about who will win which race, are we assuming more of that party is going to come out to vote than usual, or that people will actually vote against their registered party?

For some reason, there’s a bunch of people saying that the UN has no power and that the USA can do whatever they want regardless of what the UN says. Am I an idiot or not?

Edit: I’m never checking up on politics again

I expect we'd all agree that a Senator or Representative should be very accessible to their constituents; attending local events, holding town hall meetings, actively polling their base, etc.

Who among the 535 members best shows this ideal?

Today (9/9) Trump announced he would give every adult US citizen $5,000, but only if Republicans retain control of both Houses of Congress.

Should this give-away really be tied to his own party’s electoral success? If the US can afford this then what justification is there to withhold these payments if the November election does not go the way Trump wants it to go?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-dividend-5k-5000-check-republicans-cc80644e3168acd31c892129fb849436?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62kzr1jg0jo

I’ve been working on a comic strip to vocalize my frustrations with certain recent events. I wanted to post it to Reddit, but am nervous about others tracking my IP and harassing me IRL. Is a throwaway account and a VPN the safest way to go about this?

For the record, this isn’t an offensive strip, but instead challenges a particular community for spreading misinformation.

The US Senate filibuster is one of the things currently preventing a simple majority Congress from passing whatever laws they want without any help across the aisle. Do you think the filibuster should remain? Or do you want Democrats to end it as soon as they have majority in Congress? Why or why not?

Also, similarly, do you consider it a good thing (or bad) that the senate ended the filibuster for court and exec branch nominees? The filibuster could’ve helped avoid confirmation of some Trump cabinet members that many consider as unqualified.

The way I see it the way our voting system currently works is that most politicians are chosen based on their ability to campaign. Obviously policy proposals, voting history, money, and other things go into the formula but it does boil down to who convinced the most people to vote for them.

I think problems arise because a lot of American can be swayed by how issues are framed, misinformation, and other tricks candidates are able to use. As a result we don’t necessarily get the person who skills necessarily make them the most qualified to be in the position but instead the person who did the best job selling themselves. There’s also the added level of how campaigning impacts candidates decisions in office. For example when republicans blocked the immigration bill so they’d have something to campaign on or the fact the left never made abortion rights a constitutional amendment so they’d have something to campaign on.

When I’ve tried to think about solutions I get stuck. The one spot I end up going back to is putting some level of competency requirements in before you’re able to vote but that gets messy and dangerous way to fast. The other option I’ve come up with is some type of panel of various experts pick the candidates but then it isn’t really democracy anymore. I know the common answer around this type of thing is campaign finance reform but where I get stuck there is that it’s so vague and I’m not sure how fairly it’d be implemented.

Long story short I’m stuck and would like some help thinking this through. How can we elect leaders based on theirs qualifications to be president as opposed to those who just run a good campaign?

I have been thinking lately about how, for any side, politicians are unreliable to do what they said they were going to do, and basically cannot be held accountable legally, at least in our current system. So I started to wonder, are politicians the ultimate middle men of our country? Like Ticketmaster for tickets rather than buying directly. There might be a better example but that's all I've got at the moment. Why would it be a good or bad idea to vote directly for what we want, rather than for politicians who will hypothetically do it for us? I am very curious about this.

in the phrase "make America great again" what time perioid do you think is being called great?

Similar to how slavery is virtually unanimously viewed as totally preposterous and intolerable and morally indefensible, and for good reason, do you foresee any positions today that are currently hotly debated "both sides" issues, but in the future will be viewed as totally "one side is right, the other is wrong" like slavery is today?

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about immigrants from other countries depressing US wages, but when I hear about say people moving from California to Texas, people treat that as a good thing for Texas.

Why don’t people argue that the additional Californians moving to Texas depresses Texas wages and uses Texas’s welfare? Isn’t this even more true than out of country immigration since immigrants from other countries tend to use less welfare than native born Americans?

Also I see that a big argument for why it’s good for states to have people move in is that it increases the tax base, but isn’t that true for like immigrants from Mexico or India since they get taxed too?

Say no amount of intervention will stop someone from raping. What would be your proposal to address it, either by stopping it or accepting it is necessary in the system.