According to a recent [ProPublica investigation](https://www.propublica.org/article/cisa-election-security-donald-trump), Trump administration officials reportedly asked CISA to acquire a voting machine, attempt to hack it, and keep any discovered vulnerabilities secret rather than disclose them to the manufacturer.

This reportedly happened while the administration was cutting CISA’s election-security personnel and programs.

I understand the argument for investigating vulnerabilities in voting systems, but I’m struggling to understand why the findings would need to be withheld from manufacturers rather than addressed through established cybersecurity disclosure practices.

**Do you see this as a legitimate election-security effort, or does the secrecy surrounding the request raise concerns?** And would your opinion change if a Democratic administration made the same request?

Looking at the Presidential Walk of Fame on WhiteHouse.gov, I’m concerned about how some former presidents are represented:

• Bill Clinton is pictured alongside Jeffrey Epstein.
• Obama is shown with his arm extended in a potentially suggestive pose.
• Biden is labeled “Autopen.”

I also noticed that many of the more recent presidents’ individual pages place considerable emphasis on President Trump rather than focusing on the president being commemorated.

Does this create a double standard considering President Trump has his own past association with Jeffrey Epstein and the controversy surrounding Elon Musk’s gesture?

Do you consider this an appropriate presentation of presidential history on an official government website or does it disrespect the office of the presidency?

Where do you draw the line between political criticism and respecting the office of the presidency? Would you support a future democratic president applying the same standard to former Republican presidents?

There are scenes of devastation, with centuries-old architecture and art being destroyed. It was described as being a student protest against conditions in the French schools, even though France spends the most on education in the entire EU.

Whether that is true or not, it has since morphed into enormous riots of arson, looting, and graffiti. Estimates put it at around 500,000 people in France alone participating in these riots. And they have now spread to Spain, Italy, and Albania.

We aren't seeing many French flags in the crowd. We are seeing a lot of English words and phrases being used, and the flags of communists and Antifa and Palestine.

A federal magistrate judge threatened Friday to levy sanctions against President Donald Trump for failing to “participate” in his own defamation lawsuit against the BBC, after the broadcaster informed the court that Trump had backed out of a planned deposition in the case and suggested he couldn’t be interviewed until next year.

KEY FACTS
Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett issued an order Friday directing Trump to file a response to the BBC regarding his deposition by Oct. 22, noting the court had already “admonished” the president for his “lack of participation” in the case “to no avail.”
Failing to “strict[ly]” comply with the court’s schedule for discovery in the case, Lett wrote Friday, “will lead to sanctions.”

Trump has sued the BBC for $10 billion, claiming the broadcaster allegedly defamed him by “deceptively” editing a video of the president’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021 for a 2024 documentary, in order to falsely suggest Trump was trying to incite violence on Jan. 6 and bias viewers against him in the 2024 election.
As part of discovery in the lawsuit—where both sides gather evidence to support their case—the BBC is trying to get a deposition from Trump, which it said in a filing Tuesday was supposed to take place Friday.

After first failing to coordinate with the BBC about the logistics for the deposition, Trump’s lawyers told the broadcaster the president wouldn’t be able to attend the deposition because of “other matters of national importance,” and wouldn’t be available to testify until January 2027 at the earliest—despite discovery in the case being scheduled to end in December.

Trump’s legal team did not directly respond to the threat of sanctions or the BBC’s request for the court to force Trump to be deposed, but alleged in a statement to Forbes that the president’s lawsuit “is holding the BBC accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/10/16/judge-threatens-to-sanction-trump-after-he-backs-out-of-deposition-in-10-billion-bbc-case/

It doesn't have to be a political figure, although it certainly can be. It could also be a teacher, a parent, an author, a stranger, etc.

Do you agree or disagree with his statement and if so, why?

Do you think this will strengthen or weaken the relationship between the US and it's allies?

Quote:

"I was a captain in Afghanistan, and we would go to the headquarters in Kabul, and there would be 50 flags at the headquarters. It was a beautiful thing to see, 50 different countries contributing to the NATO alliance and the ISAF mission there. Except there were, like, maybe five that contributed. It was actually closer to one or two that, by the end, were actually involved in kinetic operations. In fact, the patch 'ISAF' — we joked it meant 'I Saw Americans Fighting.' Which is sort of a joke but it's demoralising when you feel like it's not burden sharing, it's actually a burden. Having a flag and being part of a coalition is one thing. Actually having capability is another." 

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-poland-pete-hegseth-downplay-role-afghanistan/

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2026-10-19/hegseth-criticized-downplays-allies-afghanistan-23198809.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/19/pete-hegseth-nato-afghanistan-downing-street

https://www.thedailybeast.com/uk-publicly-shames-pete-hegseth-over-insult-to-nato-troops

By necessary evil I mean someone who might not be the ideal president or someone you might not vote for in "normal" times, but who is necessary in order to get illegal immigration under control, get radical leftist judges and activists out of government, get back law and order, get criminal and corrupt Democrats investigated and jailed, stop and eradicate the woke mind virus, etc etc.

A question for here, but it is a non-party question just a election related question.

Currently, the voting system in US is based on an old setup where you send people to represent to the capital to vote for X.

But this was a pre-telegraph system and is practically obsolete. You can do a one-person-is-one-vote setup now easily (like in most of the modern democracies now due to modern tech). It is a fair way of every voter having a voice, and the gerrymandering, or so. 60% of the people in total voted Republican and 40% democrats, but because of the corrupt district drawing, and the whole district system in general. There is a chance that a minorety vote still gets a state.

(works OC 2 ways). A one-vote-per-person system will resolve this.

Would you be in favor of this, or what is the reason not to?

Eddit: It will also save a lot of tax dollars organising an election due to the lower logistics, and forces politicians to focus on the full region and not just on one where they think they need to get more votes. So, no matter the party, you will be better represented. Is this seen differently?

I asked the same question on a democrat focused group, I like to see how this is seen from both perspectives. So can you let me know :) ?

Bonus Question: Which candidate do you believe has a better shot of the presidency? Vance or Rubio?

There is nothing else to add here.

A member of the House having her property raided by the FBI is a pretty big deal, everyone agrees. It seems that the DOJ may have a case (especially with the reporting from the post that there are sources saying they have DNA evidence to support their claim).

My question is kind of in that area, but also just about prosecutions that I've been noodling over for a few weeks. So it's really a multi-part thing:

• for however much you know about the case, are you trying to reserve the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality?
• Do you foresee a possibility that she is actually guilty and gets a conviction?
• If she's found innocent, will you (barring obvious prosecutorial misconduct) accept that on its face?
• Have we as a society gotten too eager to blanket convict our 'enemies' and be willing to overlook VERY serious flaws for our 'friends'? Does this factor into that equation?
• Crunchy or smooth peanut butter?
  

For reference:

https://www.digitaljournal.com/article/trump-says-he-has-been-tougher-on-russia-than-anybody/

Elon Musk has settled a class action lawsuit over allegations that his shady super PAC offered President Donald Trump’s supporters a chance to win $1 million—when the winners had already been handpicked.
Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Musk’s America PAC offered to “randomly” give away $1 million each day to registered voters in several battleground states if they signed an online petition to support “free speech and the right to bear arms”—and forfeited their personal information in the process.

In response to a legal challenge in Pennsylvania, Musk’s attorney Chris Gober revealed that the recipients weren’t chosen randomly at all but were picked based on their personal story and “suitability to serve” as spokespeople for the super PAC.

https://newrepublic.com/post/216736/elon-musk-settles-lawsuit-donald-trump-supporters-lottery-2024

Since 1900, Socialism and Communism have killed a conservatively-estimated 100 million people. This is not due to side-effects, like drug abuse or murder. This is due to starvation and purges that were directly done by Socialists and Communists.

Yet, not only have the two just always been around, but they are seeing a resurgence recently. Is it just because of housing costs, or that they think that they can do it better, even though neither have ever worked - except for the "successes" of China and North Korea and Cuba. Or, do you think it's something psychologically deeper? Maybe enormous denial or musunderstanding?

The Trump administration is repeatedly violating the U.S. constitution's 5th and 14th amendments by utilizing expanded fast-track policies and emergency powers to deport individuals without their protected right to due process,.

Donald Trump wants to bypass immigration courts alltogether, JD Vance has called the right to due process for non-citizens a "fake legal process" and Stephen Miller has claimed that the judicial process is for Americans only - all of which are claims that ignores what the constitution actually says.

Sources:
https://www.vera.org/news/what-does-due-process-mean-for-immigrants-and-why-is-it-important
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/29/g-s1-63187/trump-courts-immigration-judges-due-process

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

It's the weekend! Politics is still out there happening, but in this little corner of the sub we will leave it behind momentarily and talk about other aspects of our lives.

Bonus question for everyone! Halloween is just around the corner... Do you celebrate Halloween? If so, how? Parties, taking kids trick or treating, do you dress up?

Talk about anything except politics, other subreddits, or r/AskTrumpSupporters. Rules 2 and 3 are suspended.

No longer gas prices, inflation or immigration.

Corruption is now the main concern for voters according to a Fox News poll.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-cost-living-concerns-weigh-gop-midterms

President Donald Trumpon Friday signed an executive order that puts on hold a sweeping new sanctions packagetargeting the Russian economy, telling Congress the pause was in the national interest.
Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation. It drew shift condemnation from congressional Democrats.
Named after late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the legislation had sought to clamp down more quickly on the flow of financial resources fueling the war against Ukraine.
Trump’s unexpected decision comes a week after he stunningly said the U.S. had agreed to purchase diesel from Russia to try to bring down global energy prices, despite that potentially hurting Ukraine in its war with Russia.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-sanctions-trump-ukraine-e50c561ab805883bb4e484c092d8fadd

The Trump administration is delaying the release of detailed data showing how Republicans’ 2025 tax cuts affected millions of Americans’ taxes, even as it tries to sell voters on the law ahead of the midterm elections.
The numbers document which tax breaks were claimed by people in different income brackets, as well as information like how much they paid in taxes.

The IRS typically releases the data in the wake of each filing season, and this year’s rollout is more anticipated because it’s expected to provide the first detailed look at how taxpayers are taking advantage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including its new deductions for overtime wages and tipped income.
The data was scheduled to be released in July, and then updated again in September, as the IRS processed more people’s returns —but the agency hasn’t published either. The IRS said it is awaiting approval from the Treasury Department to publish the figures.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/14/administration-delays-irs-data-gop-tax-cuts-01116807

deporting illegal immigrants was supposed to lower crime, give citizens more jobs, free up more healthcare, and overall improve life in the USA. Is there any direct data that shows that this is the actual result?

President Trump referred to Katie Zacharia as an "attorney".

A native of California, Katie previously served as Spokesperson and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Katie is a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax.

She repeatedly referred to herself as a "lawyer".

“A lot of the misinformation, miscommunication, Jack, is around the fact that I labeled myself ‘lawyer,’ and I consulted for a very long time many people in the field ‘is it OK and acceptable if I label myself lawyer? Not attorney at law … and provide legal analysis, not legal advice?,’” she explained, adding, “they said ‘absolutely’ across the board.”

Trump press secretary Katie Zacharia says she passed bar exam in China, raising eyebrows, yet she never passed the bar exam.

White House press secretary Katie Zacharia confirms she never passed bar exam after saying she's a lawyer:

Zacharia told CBS News in a statement Thursday she "practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials," although it's not clear which credentials she meant. Only Chinese nationals may take the bar exam in China.

What are your thoughts on referring to someone who has not passed the bar exam as a lawyer or attorney?

What are your thoughts on the legality of "practicing law" without having passed the bar exam?

The Trump administration ordered federal financial regulators to retract a report flagging suspicious oil trades. 
Only 15 minutes before President Trump decided not to strike Iranian power plants on March 23, a few traders sank billions of dollars into predicting that the S&P 500 would go up and oil prices would fall, making a hefty profit, Bloomberg reports. The traders reportedly used a two-minute window at 6:49 a.m. that day to make the massive deals in futures markets. 

https://newrepublic.com/post/216574/trump-official-tries-kill-report-perfectly-timed-oil-trades-cftc

https://x.com/RonPaul/status/2105425295876460866

This is from Brilliant Maps. It's about the 2016 Presidential election, but I really don't think much has changed since then. It's been passed around and updated, but this is the source. You may have seen it before. What do you think of it?

I find it surprising to find out that college education doesn't matter at all. Trump would have won either way. And that the only way Democrats can win is with women and minorities. And that there are two scenarios where Trump wins California.

Scott Galloway and Ben Shapiro recently participated in a debate hosted by USAFacts where they discussed issues like the increased cost of housing and nimbyism, how college acceptance rates have decreased significantly in the past few decades, federal entitlement programs and how they serve a surprising amount of rich Americans and many senior citizens, the realities of upward mobility in America, how the rich avoid paying income taxes and so on.

I'll provide a link to the debate for your viewing pleasure down below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7_1Mqhmf4Y&t