US inflation is partially driven by high diesel and gas prices.

With a new Congress coming in after November, given that the increase in diesel and gas prices is due to refineries being damaged, what can the US Congress without presidential support do to address inflation due to this particular cause?

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/1008

Trump famously rails against mail in voting saying it is rife with fraud going all the way back to the lead up for the 2020 election https://www.npr.org/2020/08/19/903886567/trump-while-attacking-mail-voting-casts-mail-ballot-again . While I'm not sure it is rampant with fraud, Trump isn't entirely wrong.

In 2018, Republicans literally stole NC 9th congressional district due to a mail in fraud scheme done by then candidate and now Rep Mark Harris's campaign. Now Mark Harris was never charged or accused of anything himself but a political operative for his campaign Leslie McCrae Dowless was charged with several crimes and only had the charges dismissed when he died. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-election-scandal-in-north-carolinas-9th-district/ and https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-election-congress-absentee-ballots-80d9496326fb84c5b478f8c9be46d21c give a more in-depth story about it.

To Democrats/Democrat voters do you still trust mail in voting? If so, do you not worry another repeat of my example will occur? With the rise of partisanship, I wouldn't be surprised to see more elections won by tight margins. Is my example so rare and extreme that the risk of fraud is worth accepting for the convenience/increasing access to voting?

OFAC issued a general license on October 9 authorizing Russian diesel imports until April 2027. Russia committed to supplying 300,000 tons immediately, 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons afterward (source - https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20261009_33 )

Trump told Zelensky to stop attacking Russian refineries, arguing they were disrupting global diesel supply and hurting American consumers. He also suggested Ukraine might need a new leader. (source - https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-yandex-trump-zelenskyy-f621fa788196f204448e7f75fcc78c68 )

The administration's stated logic is straightforward: diesel prices hit a record $6.53/gallon, the midterms are three weeks away, and the world cannot absorb two simultaneous energy crises.

Several Republican senators have criticized the deal as going "directly against" existing law banning Russian energy imports.

Is this a legitimate case of prioritizing American economic interests over idealistic support for Ukraine? What do you think?

I’m 15 and I consider myself politically educated, to a degree. I would say I am slightly more democratic than republican, but I do not agree with a lot of democrat ideology. I’ve been seeing lots of reasons that democratic socialism is what is needed in the U.S. currently, as lots of people think we are in late stage capitalism ( I agree ). And they say socialism is the answer. I’ve done a little research, as well as talked with my sociology teacher. From what I’ve learned, the key problems of each system is in capitalism the rich will exploit the system, while in socialism the poor exploit it. I really don’t know much, so don’t berate me if I sound like an idiot, but if socialists or capitalists want to let me know why their system is superior, I’d love to hear it.
P.S. I’m a huge fan of what capitalism was like in the progressive era.

I think they should not waste this opportunity on impeachment, but rather pn Affordability and making things better using their Congressional powers.

What do you think should be the priorities?

This is something I've genuinely struggled to understand, particularly in the context of American politics and the far right. There are documented examples of Latino individuals participating in white supremacist or far-right extremist movements. The Brennan Center for Justice published an article examining this phenomenon, discussing figures including Nick Fuentes, former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Mauricio Garcia, the perpetrator of the 2023 Allen, Texas, mass shooting.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice – Why White Supremacist Groups Attract Latinos to Their Ranks

Obviously, supporting Trump or restrictive immigration policies isn't automatically equivalent to supporting white supremacy. I'm interested in understanding both the distinctions and any ideological overlap. Looking at mainstream electoral politics, Pew Research Center found that 48% of Hispanic voters supported Donald Trump in 2024, compared with 36% in 2020. That's a substantial increase, particularly given the controversies surrounding Trump's immigration rhetoric and policies.

Source: Pew Research Center – How Voting Patterns Changed in the 2024 Election

Then there's immigration enforcement itself.

According to the Department of Homeland Security's FY2023 workforce report, Hispanic men constituted over half of Border Patrol agents. More recently, reporting has estimated that Latino personnel account for approximately 20–30% of ICE agents, although the precise figure varies by source and period.

Sources:

DHS – FY2023 Workforce Report

The Guardian – Why Do Latinos Work for ICE?

What interests me is how these different forms of participation are understood because I recognise that Latino Americans aren't a monolith. National origin, citizenship status, class, religion, political ideology and personal experiences with immigration can all influence someone's views. Nor am I assuming that Latino Americans have some inherent obligation to support particular immigration policies.

But I'm curious about several explanations. How significant are racial identity and proximity to whiteness? Does distinguishing between legal and undocumented immigration explain some of this support? What roles do economic interests, religious conservatism, nationalism and assimilation play?

And regarding immigration enforcement, how much can be explained by employment opportunities and professional identity, as opposed to ideological agreement with the policies being enforced?

My central question is this: How do researchers explain why some members of a minority population support movements, institutions or policies that may also disadvantage people from their broader ethnic communities

For years, Europe talked tough on Russia while still buying Russian oil and gas. Since 2022, the EU has purchased $209bn worth of Russian energy (link - https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/13/europe-paid-russia-209bn-for-energy-since-2022-far-below-moscows-320bn-claim )
France kept importing Russian LNG. Hungary and Slovakia got pipeline exemptions. So the sanctions were never as clean as they sounded.

Meanwhile, the US actually complied. We stopped importing Russian oil and kept the pressure on.

Then came the Strait of Hormuz crisis. Diesel prices hit $6/gallon. Trump announced a diesel deal on October 9. OFAC issued a general license authorizing Russian diesel imports through April 2027 . Russia agreed to ship 300,000 tons immediately and 500,000 in November

Trump's argument is simple: American consumers come first. Farmers and truckers are getting crushed by diesel prices three weeks before the midterms . He says we can't fight two energy wars at once.

Yet EU leaders seem to be very unhappy with what he did (link - https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-rebukes-donald-trump-russia-diesel-imports-ukraine-support/ )

What's you take on this?

Current polls are made up of a mix of recent candidates, those who have expressed interest or have popularity. So, excluding candidates already polled for, presumably from a list like on https://www.racetothewh.com/president/2028/dem (apologies if this isn't the best site. I just wanted to find one with a pretty good list of who they were already polling) not exhaustively: AOC, Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg, Mark Kelly, Shapiro, Beshear, Pritzker, Booker, Ossoff.

I'd like to see Hillary Clinton because I think she's an interesting analog for Kamala Harris. They both lost to Trump. But Hillary actually won primaries, won the popular vote and Trump was comparatively unknown. Whereas Kamala won zero primaries, lost the popular vote and was up against a Trump who had already lost once, and had known scandals, felony convictions and sexual abuse convictions.

Some states like Georgia are swing states at the national level, but solid red at the state level. Vermont and New Hampshire are solid blue states but have Republican governors, and Kentucky and Kansas are solid red states but have democrat governors. This is bizarre.

So polls generally predict a blue wave in mid terms no matter for senate or congress, but it appears that Trump supporters are not engaging in polls https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democratic-blue-wave-midtern-election-polls-b3064868.html. So I’m just curious on whether the polls actually reflect what Americans think, do national poll results of mid terms actually reflect voting tendencies across the country?

So recently Trump started a deal with Russia about buying diesel, although congress is against that

https://apnews.com/article/trump-russian-diesel-putin-congress-ukraine-963624ed2ed30ae4a0259ffd1880fefa

I live in EU, colleague are shocked but not surprised to me at this point as I do follow US news. So how shall US treat Russia from now on? So to Americans, shall US continue to treat Russia as a big adversary, or drop sanctions because Russia is fighting Europe not America?

Megathread will cover the subject matter only. You are free to opine, discuss, debate and share updates about subject matter only in this megathread

For your convenience, mods have provided as “live update” tracker about subject matter as source.

Megathread will remain active for 48hrs or until conversation has ceased, which ever comes 1st.

At present, mods will not entertain any stand-alone post about subject matter and refer back to megathread

Please report bad faith commenters, low effort and off-topic comments

What are you voting on? I’m just curious to see if anything interesting or different is on the ballot for you. It could be something potentially revolutionary or crazy or weird, or anything you think stands out. I can’t really google something so specific so I’m asking you. Please don’t hesitate to share even if you aren’t sure it’s unique enough.

I have a genuine question for independent and undecided voters, particularly those who remain uncertain about the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

Recently, I watched a town hall featuring six or seven Black voters who described themselves as undecided. It got me thinking about something I’ve struggled to understand for quite some time.

For context, I’m a 47-year-old white man raised in rural Florida by adoptive parents born in 1922 and 1925. My father was involved in efforts to desegregate our local IBEW union, yet both of my parents held racist views. I loved them dearly, but I’ve never excused those beliefs as simply products of their generation.

Growing up in a deeply conservative environment, I wasn’t exposed to much diversity in political or cultural perspectives. Much of what I’ve learned about the history and struggles of marginalized communities has been self-education, largely inspired by my early exposure to the internet and the opportunity to communicate with people from different backgrounds around the world.

I recognize that there are legitimate reasons for distrusting political institutions, particularly among historically marginalized communities. I also understand that neither major political party has consistently delivered on its promises.

However, from my perspective, the current Republican Party has demonstrated troubling patterns involving corruption, racial rhetoric, civil rights, and the use of presidential and congressional power. With so much information publicly available about the policies being advanced and the actions of elected officials, I struggle to understand how some voters remain undecided.

So, for those who are genuinely undecided, what is preventing you from making a decision?

Is it distrust of both parties? Dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership? Economic concerns that outweigh other issues? A belief that neither party represents your interests? Or do you interpret the actions and policies of the current administration fundamentally differently than I do?

I also recognize that identifying as an independent doesn’t necessarily mean someone is undecided.

I’m not asking this to insult anyone’s intelligence or suggest that people are obligated to support a particular party. I’m genuinely interested in understanding how people arrive at political conclusions different from my own, particularly when we’re all looking at many of the same events.

I’d especially appreciate firsthand responses from undecided voters rather than people speculating about what undecided voters think. I’m interested in having an actual discussion, not an argument.

I've noticed this trend across several Western countries, particularly the US, UK and Germany.

It seems that many people on the right view those on the left as naive, misinformed or simply wrong about how the world works. Meanwhile, many people on the left seem to view those on the right not merely as mistaken, but as fundamentally bad people with harmful or even evil intentions.

Why do you think this is happening? Is it cause by social media echo chambers, political polarisation and rabbit holes?

With the midterms coming up, I'm curious how people are actually feeling about US politics right now.

A lot has happened since the 2024 election, and I'm interested in hearing from Republicans, Democrats, independents, and people who've become frustrated with both parties.

What has influenced your thinking the most? I'm especially interested in hearing from people whose views have changed.

I’m from Poland, and I’m curious about how this looks from an American perspective. I’ve seen some pretty negative reactions online to the possibility of Harris running again, including from people who strongly oppose Trump. I know those comments aren’t necessarily representative, so I’d rather ask people directly.

For those of you who would prefer someone else, what’s the biggest reason? Is it her policies, how she ran her campaign, her connection to Biden, concerns about winning after losing in 2024, or simply having better candidates in mind? I wouldn’t automatically see one election loss as ruling someone out, but I may be missing some context.

One thing that makes me wonder whether she could have another shot is that, from what I’ve seen, some of her warnings about a second Trump presidency seem to have played out. Could revisiting those debate clips give her a convincing campaign message, or would that do little to address why people didn’t support her in the first place?

I’m also curious how much gender factors into this. I’ve seen people say that America still isn’t ready to elect a woman president, but I’m unsure how you separate that from objections to Harris specifically. Is that something you worry about electorally, even if you’d personally be happy to vote for a woman?

I’m not particularly attached to her being the next nominee. I just don’t fully understand the strength of the reaction, and I’d like to hear what shapes your view.

I am not a big money donor. I work for a non-profit and only give a $10 or so when I donate to a candidate and that doesn’t happen very often. If anyone else donates, you are probably very aware by now we are in the deluge of emails and text season.

I’ve noticed in the last five years that some campaigns (not necessarily PACs) will contact you over and over and over and ask for $1 here or there. I realize bots and scripts and probably AI now can send out thousands of emails a minute but honestly…aren’t they eating up all these $1 donors? And aren’t they afraid somebody like myself will get ticked off and block or unsubscribe?

Anybody have an idea what is behind this?

Looking for an answer from moderates, centrists, independents, Democrats, and liberals.

Lately came upon this story by Fox News showing evidence in the form of his half-sister’s X posts that Abdul El-Sayed and his family have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and that he’s not telling the truth when he said him and his family didn’t have ties. Seen several other right-wing websites mention this evidence as well.

Now naturally I am aware all these websites presenting this evidence that supposedly prove the claims him and his family are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood are politically biased and are being used by Republicans/conservatives as way to prove their claims against him.

So I was therefore curious on what everyone’s thoughts on this was especially since the post from the half-sister seem to be objective evidence.

Can someone explain to me why Latinos would think that Republicans have anything to offer them?

https://www.npr.org/2026/10/10/nx-s1-5991897/democrats-latino-voters-influencers-bold-pac

At present, the largest voting bloc in the U.S. is comprised of disaffected voters declaring themselves independent of both major parties for various reasons. How possible would it have been for a still functional Reform Party, assuming it had taken advantage of its initial publicity and success to grow organically and remain relevant to the media and the minds of voters, to have taken advantage of the political shift to make serious inroads towards becoming a major viable alternative to Republicans and Democrats?

Watching some tv over here and horrified at the blatant and outright false allegations about candidates. You would not see anything like this in Europe.

During the Bush years, gay marriage was pretty much seen as an ultra-liberal position. At least that’s how I remember it, as I was a kid during this time. In the 2008 election, Obama, Biden, and Hillary were all (publicly) opposed to it. So even in the Democratic Party, it wasn’t necessarily a mainstream position.

And yet by 2011, Gallup found majority support for gay marriage for the first time. Some polls actually had this happening in 2010. Whereas in 2008 even California voted it down. By 2013 or so, NOT supporting gay marriage was considered politically incorrect or even bigoted.

Why did the public change its mind so fast on this issue? I can’t recall anything specific involving LGBT people around that time. And it’s not as if the Constitution changed either. I also can’t think of an analogous instance where a hot-button social issue disappeared so quickly. Theories?