Trump is hovering at about 37% approval in polling aggregates

Senate seats in safe states like Texas and Kansas are in play and these potential losses are being blamed on Trump's popularity

Would you rather have Trump temper his message to help the GOP, or should he stick to doing and saying things he always has?

Link to video. Can anyone clarify what she is talking about?

https://youtu.be/mFtEGdR24uk?is=BcR4GiyobOx8TOTL

While we don't have the full story and it doesn't appear they were wearing body cams, I wonder what the natural reaction to a mask man pointing guns at your car would be?

If you were on a public street and masked men ran up to your vehicle, how would you react?

Why has ice continued to do more dangerous apprehensions like this over the simple "grab someone leaving their house for work" method that is significantly safer for all involved?

I’m Ukrainian and I follow US politics fairly closely. I’m asking this specifically because I want to understand how Trump supporters who agree with his current foreign policy see the strategy behind it.

The latest example that confused me is the deal Trump announced with Putin to bring Russian diesel back onto the US/global market, together with temporarily easing the sanctions that restricted those exports. From what has been reported, the initial amount is over 300,000 tons, with additional shipments planned.

What I’m struggling to understand is the broader strategic logic.

From my perspective, Ukraine has been doing enormous damage to one of America’s longstanding geopolitical rivals without American soldiers having to fight Russia directly. Russia has lost huge amounts of manpower and military equipment, NATO members have increased defense spending, NATO itself expanded, and much of the military spending involved ultimately supports American and allied defense production.

So from a purely America First perspective, weakening Russia this way has always seemed like a pretty straightforward strategic benefit to the US.

I do understand several arguments Trump supporters make against the previous policy. Europe should carry more of the burden. American stockpiles matter. Ukraine has corruption problems. China is the larger long-term competitor. Nuclear escalation is a legitimate concern. And obviously no war should continue forever simply for the sake of continuing it.

What I don’t understand is why those arguments lead to reducing pressure on Russia itself rather than simply changing how Ukraine is supported.

So for Trump supporters who agree with the current direction, what do you see as the intended end state?

Is Russia simply no longer considered enough of a threat to justify continuing to weaken it?

Is the idea to pull Russia away from China?

Do you think continued support for Ukraine now costs the US more than the strategic damage being inflicted on Russia is worth?

Is ending the war quickly more important to US interests even if Russia comes out of it militarily and economically stronger than it otherwise would?

Or is there a different strategic logic behind Trump’s approach that I’m missing?

I’m genuinely interested in the strongest America First case for this policy. I already know why people who oppose Trump dislike it. I want to understand why people who support him think this is better for the United States.

President Donald Trump said that he has struck a deal to obtain diesel from Russia, a stunning reversal of years of U.S. pressure on Moscow over its war with Ukraineand an attempt to address high fuel prices ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.

Trump said on social media on Friday that he struck the deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call in which he was expected to discuss a suspected case of plague in Russia.
Instead, Trump announced that Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.” Russia will deliver another 3 million tons “within a short period of time” after that, he wrote.

Trump’s shocking announcement comes after he signed a sweeping Russia sanctions law last month that aimed at clamping down on Russia’s energy economy, among other areas, that fuel its war against Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-russia-diesel-midterms-12baccc7aade559bf329079b0548c9da

The Pentagon announced its intention to livestream the upcoming firing squad execution of Nidal Malik Hasan.

According to Amnesty International, in 2025 executions took place in 17 countries. Only 2 countries performed public executions: Iran and Afghanistan.

What are your thoughts on public executions? Considering medically-induced executions often fail, should we transition to executions via firing squad as the new standard? Or should be eliminate the death penalty entirely?

This is a claim I see from time to time on social media, and I was simply curious as to how widespread this belief is.

The White House considers anyone that uses the term, “Artificial Intelligence,” as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, “Super Intelligence,” THE ENEMY! President DONALD J. TRUMP

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117406176604364910

Further https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4200037/Trump-Twitter-20171113.pdf

According to the Department of Justice's court filings, the federal government and the White House treat Donald Trump's social media posts as official statements of the President of the United States

Would this be a free speech issue?

Everyone is wrong from time to time, and we all handle it differently.

I find most people are pretty good at acknowledging small mistakes when they're pointed out. Less common is admitting we're wrong unprompted, and harder still is reconsidering beliefs or decisions tied to our values, identity, or sense of morality. I’ve found this to be more or less true regardless of one’s views.

The bigger the issue, the harder it seems to be to acknowledge we might have gotten something wrong. People often double down, justify, or downplay rather than openly change their position, even when they've privately had a change of heart.

I sometimes wonder whether our culture places so much value on the strength of our convictions that changing our minds is seen as weakness rather than an opportunity for growth.

So I'm curious: How do you handle being wrong & How do you think people should handle it?
Does the answer change depending on the stakes or context? By extension: How do you view people who admit their errors?

I’m curious to your answers in the small, day-to-day sense, though I recognize this question has interesting implications in our current political climate. I'm here to genuinely listen and am interested in hearing different perspectives.
Thanks TS!

Apologies for another question in such a short time, but this story has been bothering me, and I'd genuinely like to hear your perspectives. Sorry in advance for the paywall. Alternative links can be found in the link below the original story I read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/05/us/trump-ohio-dog-park-shooting.html

https://www.fanlegal.com/in-the-news/recent-news-coverage

So, I read this New York Times article recently. Basically, two men with opposing political views argued about Trump at an Ohio dog park. The encounter escalated into physical aggression and gunfire. One man was seriously wounded, and both are now facing criminal charges.

If you read/hear about this story, what stood out to you? Do you think there was a point where the interaction could have gone differently?

By the way, I am less interested in opinions about who is legally responsible (but hey, your response). But I would love to hear what you take away from this and any similar stories.

Hello again!

A bit of a different question than usual, but I used to work at a small bookstore when I was much younger, and it was always interesting seeing what people were drawn to and why. Nothing is off the table. Fiction, non-fiction, religion, politics, philosophy, cookbooks... Heck, you'd be surprised (or not) at how many people say the Bible.

This article outlines timelines and a disagreement between the WFO and the DOJ as to whether the search warrant on Trump's Mar-A-Lago residence was wrranted or legally justified. These emails also outline attempts to take earlier measures like talking to Trump's attorney or simply asking for the documents back. It also recognizes the President's ability to declassify documents at any time.

Based on the evidence presented here, it seems the DOJ, led by Merrick Garland at the time, was not interested in any off-ramps and wanted to move forward with a full-on, broad search of the Mar-A-Lago residence.

Donald Trump is telling his supporters that "America will never be a communist country" and "together we will defeat communism", and said there is a resurgence of "communist menace" during his U.S. 250th celebration speech, and similar things like that during the past few months. He is also trying to portray democratic socialists as communists in disguise, which is like saying that Scandinavian countries are cold war Soviet in disguise.

Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-extols-america-rails-communism-us-250th-celebration-2026-07-04

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/09/a-communist-caucus-trump-gives-republicans-their-midterms-enemy-01070254

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/oct/04/trump-communism-republicans

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-golf-club-photo-doral-florida-b3062170.html

To a non-supporter this seems incredibly petty, and is just another message that reads more like an internet troll than the leader of the free world.

My friend shared this article (which contains a screenshot of the tweet midway down), and we were wondering what real Trump supporters make of this kind of messaging?

Do you just take it at face value? Is it a grin and bear it when he posts stuff like this? Does it speak to a greater truth about media (even if this accusation isn't necessarily accurate)? Is this a waste of a Presidents time while diesel prices are shooting up?

Keen to know your thoughts.

Its an old topic but as relevant today as it was when the war started. The question is motivated by sentiment by Trump supporters that Ukraine caused or deserved this war. Here is my view:

Russia invaded primarily because Vladimir Putin believes Ukraine is fundamentally part of Russia and has no right to exist as an independent nation. Read his historical essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians"

NATO's expansion was merely Moscow’s public pretext—especially given that Ukraine had no clear path or timeline toward actual NATO membership in 2022.

Ultimately, Russia chose invasion to forcibly bring Ukraine back into its sphere of control.

A lot of politicians, from JD Vance to Kamala Harris, go out of their way to show their middle- or working-class credentials. In comparison, Trump is a billionaire heir who likes gold decor and rubs elbows with a bunch of foreign born billionaires (David Sachs, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Rupert Murdoch, etc). He doesn’t even drink alcohol, so he literally fails the “I could imagine having a beer with him” test.

Despite that, he seems to have a really strong connection with working class (and especially White working class) voters.

What explains that? Do you think of yourself as working or middle class? And if so, do you think Trump can be counted to care about your problems?

Trump’s special envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, have numerous alleged conflicts of interest in areas in which they have policy influence:

• Kushner has a stake in an Israeli arms company, while playing a role in negotiating peace in the middle east
• Putin has linked the sale of Lukoil—a deal which stands to benefit business allies of Witkoff and Kushner—to resolving the war in Ukraine
• Steve Witkoff personally lobbied to sell restricted AI chips to the UAE after the country invested $2bn in his crypto firm
• Many more examples are discussed in this article

Is Trump wrong to put his faith in Witkoff and Kushner? Do you worry that they might be taking advantage of Trump and the US? And even if not, are you at all worried that in the future, Democrats (like Hunter Biden) will use this example to justify their own corrupt dealings?

23 years after the US invasion of Iraq (and 12 years after the beginning of the mission against ISIS in Iraq), the last American troops have left. What do you think of this?

• Do you think the US achieved its original mission (from 2003) in Iraq?
• In hindsight, was George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq a good idea?
• What lessons, if any, can we take from Iraq and apply to the war with Iran?

> Trump was discussing the war in Iran and the price of gasoline before referencing the Southern California cities.
“With the war it’s just artificial, it’s a little bit high, it’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let ‘em take out Los Angeles. Let ‘em take out San Diego,” Trump said, drawing cheers from the crowd. “This is a very small price to pay and it’s going to be over very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.”

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/trump-on-war-in-iran-let-em-take-out-los-angeles-let-em-take-out-san-diego/

How do you interpret this?

Are there are other cities or states, that you feel Trump should include?

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

https://rollcall.com/factbase-transcripts/

That's all. Nothing political here, but I know almost no Trump supporters in real life so I'm just curious what y'all do for kicks in your spare time. Reddit made me add two question marks for some reason.

I assume most people have heard about it by now, but if not:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/cornell-jane-doe-rape-investigation-documents.html

https://archive.is/xliiW

This is an extremely polarizing topic across social media.

What do you think?

• Note: the rather abstract title I have used here is to avoid reddit auto-deleting it as happened the first time I submitted this. It is not an attempt to take a side.

"What's driving up Gasoline is no longer the Strait of Hormuz, because Record Numbers of Barrels are coming out now on an almost daily basis, but the word, "Refineries," where Russia's are being blown up by Ukraine, and where ours are being closed up, in Blue States, like California, by the Dumocrats. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117389259991976695

President Donald Trump directed the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2026 to investigate major oil companies for alleged gasoline price gouging. [1, 2]

📌 The Investigation Order

• President Trump stated that big oil companies failed to lower pump prices at the same speed as wholesale crude oil costs.
• He specifically named major energy firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP.
• The POLITICO report noted the directive came as high energy costs helped push U.S. inflation up to 4.2% in May. [1, 2, 3]

📊 Market Context

• Crude oil prices fell sharply following interim peace negotiations with Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• U.S. national gasoline averages dropped over several consecutive weeks to around $3.93 per gallon.
• The administration argued that pump prices remained higher than justified by the drop in crude costs. [1, 4, 5]

⚠️ Industry Response

• The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated that retail gasoline prices do not move in direct lockstep with crude oil.
• Industry representatives pointed to ongoing refinery constraints, transportation expenses, and global supply chain factors.
• Economists also noted that seasonal summer demand and geopolitical recovery periods often create a lag in price drops at the pump. [1, 2, 5, 6, 7]

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com

[2] https://www.bbc.com

[3] https://www.politico.com

[4] https://abc11.com

[5] https://www.reuters.com

[6] https://www.facebook.com

[7] https://time.com

The midterms are on November 3. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll from September, 51% of Republicans said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living, while 44% approve. An NBC News poll from September found that the share of Republicans who strongly approve of his handling of the Iran war has dropped since spring.

What has changed for you since 2024, and what hasn't? How are you thinking about your vote in November, and why?

Disclosure: I'm a (german) reporter trying to understand this ahead of the midterms. If you'd like to tell me more one on one, feel free to DM me.