Sources:

1.) Yesterday's James Talarico CNN-Jubilee Town Hall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tweubjhuaPo

2.) James Talarico coming out in opposing trans women in women's sports in Sept Fox News interview: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NqUJq22ww1c

In yesterday's CNN-Jubilee town hall, James Talarico expressed support for Texas oil and gas industry, saying he'd oppose climate legislation that'd undermine it. He also praised "fair voter ID laws" (while not committing to voting for the SAVE Act).

Crucially, Talarico said former President Biden "failed Texas" by leaving the southern border unsecured. He wants to reform ICE, but opposes abolishing it, viewing immigration enforcement as necessary.

He also praised bipartisanship and partnering with Republicans, said he will go to the US Senate to represent the 31 million residents of Texans, not the Democratic Party. He said he supports keeping abortion legal while wanting to minimize the number of abortions via contraception access and proper sex education.

Earlier in a September Fox News interview, Talarico came out in opposition to trans women competing in women’s sports in cases where it "endangers safety and fairness."

What do liberals think of Talarico taking these positions?

I was listening to a clip of Trump explaining to his base why oil inflation isn't so bad:

I know you're worried about having to pay a tiny bit more for your gasoline. Just remember that you're doing it so that a very evil country -- it's a very evil country, the number one state sponsor of terror in the world. We don't want that country to have nuclear weapons. Remember that when you have to pay a little bit more, $4. I'll never apologize. I did the right thing.

Trump's words are not very eloquent, but his argument is simple enough, Trump presents the audience with two hard choices: (1) complete annihilation, or (2) pay a tiny bit more in gas prices. Conservatives are rationally self-interested, so they choose the option that hurts the least. They accept today's gas prices as the cost of tomorrow's freedom.

Liberals balk "but there's more than those two options, and getting nuked is the least realistic one". That's why you guys can't talk to conservatives. That's why you are never going to persuade them to stop taking people's rights away.

Appreciation for nuance is a liberal value. Conservatives are not liberals. They don't share your values. You can't use a nuanced, measured approach to talk to conservatives on your level.

You have to talk to conservatives in the most black-and-white, good vs. evil, red vs. blue way possible.

You have to raise the stakes of every issue to life and death, sunshine and darkness, the status quo or revolutionaries who overthrow the entire order of society as we know it.

You have to appeal to their selfish, self-serving, emotional impulses. "If you don't do what you're told then YOU'RE WHOLE FAMILY IS GONNA DIE! I can't protect you from the wolves and vipers who are hunting you down right now!"

This is a foreign mindset to liberals, but it is the factory default for all conservatives. Since logical arguments require nuance, you can't you use logic to navigate your way through the conservative worldview. None of your logical tools of reason are going to work on them.

Please watch this analysis of Ana Kasparian's interview with Tucker Carlson as a case study in reframing left-wing points of view in the moral framework of conservatism.

Have you ever considered studying how Trump effortlessly persuades and speaks to conservatives on their level?

I have a MAGA co-worker who I work closely with. I genuinely believe that he is a good person at heart, at least when you consider his everyday words and actions. However, he is deeply entrenched in MAGA propaganda, especially when it comes to things like trans kids or abortion.

When we talk in a general sense about what would make the world better, a lot of his ideas lean liberal. But the second anyone says something remotely anti-Trump, he flies off the handle. He'll bring up off-topic MAGA talking points, shout everyone down, and say that everyone is against him because he's MAGA (our office leans liberal). For example, he'll talk about "those crazy liberals forcing their kids to be trans" and when I calmly say, "That's ridiculous. People aren't doing that," he scoffs at me and says that I don't understand how many bad people there are in the world.

I've read about how conservative brains tend to respond to fear-based arguments, but I'm wondering if there are rhetorical techniques that I can use to subtly shift this perspective.

Anyone have suggestions?

A lot of people can't really risk to get such hair (blue, pink, purple etc), as it would lower their economic prospects when seeking work. It's safer to get this sort of hair colour if someone is in a stable job, works in or is applying to more lenient fields (eg human services), or have a strong safety net (living with a family of origin or partner). Perhaps it's a little easier to professionally get away with for some races and for women than for men.

Another example is they give admin titles and fat checks to people doing work of office secretaries.

In my state, there was a cyclist who was injured by a hit and run driver who is undocumented and lives in state public housing. The waiting list for these long-term public housing units is very long. Since this is a sanctuary state, there were no immigration or welfare related consequences for the perpetrator

Is it unreasonable for taxpayers to stop financially supporting undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes?

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/10/15/trump-administration-seeks-to-strip-ilhan-omar-of-us-citizenship-wsj

In my opinion, attempting to strip the citizenship of a sitting member of Congress, with no new evidence and only the vague hope that her father wrote a 17 instead of an 18 decadrs ago, crosses a line. I don't believe this is an occasion where it is appropriate to sit back and let the system work.

Considering the state of Somalia, this is in my opinion the President abusing his power to threaten a political opponent with harm or death, and demands something more than a letter or statement of dismay, even up to threats of legal retaliation against everyone involved if the farce continues.

So many people get up in arms about voting for the lesser of two evils and fighting over small nuances in a candidate's politics, and whether voting works or not.

But what is the actual alternative to voting? What can we do instead of it?

It seems like a lot of people on the left who are opposed to voting's plan is

• Step 1: We have a violent revolution
• Step 2: Some stuff happens I dunno
• Step 3: FULLY AUTOMATED GAY SPACE COMMUNISM is instated as the law of the world

More and more internet posts are being censored for inappropriate language. Words like rape are being replaced with r**e, because websites aren't allowing these words to be typed.

Twitter and YouTube are some of the worst, but it's impacting Reddit as well. Lately I've been making a post on Reddit, only to get a warning that offensive language isn't accepted. Oftentimes I'm not even saying anything inappropriate. The other day there was a post where the word "tapeworm" had to be censored.

These are private companies, and are allowed to do what they want, but at the same time it's problematic that a handful of companies have such a big influence on what people see and hear.

Serious question. Most forms allow you to specify an ethnicity not listed. That's how I identify. I'm white, and I'm not trash. I make the distinction because I see roughly 1/3rd of my fellow whites as being, well, trash. And we are all familiar with the stereotype of which I speak. I feel it is important to me, and my specific white culture, to specify that I am of the non-trash variety.

Edit: Interesting note: while there are many comments along the lines of, "calling someone trash is trashy," no one offers that same retort when it's directed at Trump. This tells me that a) the use of white trash seems to stir fewer emotions when applied equally across class bounds and b) Trump is widely viewed as white trash. So my definition is more or less, trump supporters = white trash. Most of them are white, and most of them are trash because they support trash. They can certainly redeem themselves, trash isn't something you're born as. Trash is learned. So I'd argue, white trash isn't racist at all.

I am particularly frustrated with the soda-ban cycle because I run a food pantry that works with our county SNAP office. And every couple of years a politician shows up with a bill banning soda, or steak, or birthday cake mix. Every time, the actual nutritionists say the same thing: it costs more than it saves, it pushes families off the program, and it doesn't make anyone healthier. The bill passes anyway (while we spend billions on wars overseas) because the point was never food.

The people who study what hungry families eat could write a sensible list in an afternoon. Less sugar, yes, and more of what kids are actually missing. Meanwhile my line keeps getting longer. I know it's the last week of the month without checking a calendar, that's when the cereal runs out. Hungry kids get sick more, end up in the ER, and their reading slips. And it's never just the food. The kid who eats is the kid who shows up, who can focus past ten in the morning. And a full plate means good grades, because it's all connected. Take the plate away and things fall apart.

I get not loving unelected experts deciding things. But the list is being written right now by Reps who need a culture-war clip for their next campaign ad, the ones that voted for the cuts in the first place. They took a million and a half kids off the program, and now they want credit for policing the cake mix the rest of them can still buy.

Shouldn't the food part follow the food people?

Just curious to see