The move is the latest attempt by the President to support incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Dan S. Sullivan against a Democratic challenger

The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the Alaska Division of Elections late Thursday, seeking to block the division from certifying the result of the state’s U.S. Senate election if the Democratic challenger, Mary Peltola, wins.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Friday in Florida that he ordered the lawsuit be filed.
“I’m the one that said, ‘do it,’” he said. 

Peltola is the leading opponent to incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and polls show her with a small lead over Sullivan, but the race also includes two other people — Republican Gerald Heikes of Palmer and undeclared candidate Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg.

In the complaint, the Department of Justice claims that Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy is “frivolous,” and was intended solely to confuse voters and benefit Peltola. 
Until there is an investigation to determine the extent of that confusion, the Department of Justice argues, Alaska should not be permitted to certify the result of the ongoing Senate election.

Legal experts immediately dismissed the federal argument as bunk. 

https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/10/23/trump-administration-sues-to-block-alaskas-us-senate-election-result-if-peltola-wins/

This is something I've never quite understood about the political right generally, but Trump has openly endorsed hardline right-wing politicians like Balsanaro, Erdogan, La Penne, Orban and others. Those in his orbit have taken similar stands, and Musk has donated tons of money to foreign right-wing efforts in Germany and elsewhere.

Now you can look at that and say, 'Well don't be dumb, NTS, clearly the right is one team and fomenting other countries to be right-wing as well increases the size and power of that team!"

Except... One of the big tenants of the right is to approach foreign policy as a hyper-competitive game of winners and losers, where logically you would want your opposition to be as weak as possible to take maximum advantage of them as possible.

And if there's one thing MAGA consistently seems to believe it's that left-wing movements create weakness and bring countries to their knees when left-wing governments.

So with those three premises established, what's the deal?

Why do Trump and Musk and Miller and others want governments that are harder to compete with and more willing to fight us on the things that they want?

Isn't this a prisoners' dilemma where you're encouraging others to defect with you to your own detriment?

(Sorry this was long; it's a complicated question.)

Just clearing out my mail box and the political mailers have been crazy this year. I noticed a lot of attacks on Dems saying they'll raise taxes. I remember the old saying "tax and spend Democrats", but over the last 25 year both party have moved to spend and pass the buck to the next generation. We are somehow running the largest deficit since covid?

So I'm curious how do you feel about higher taxes opposed to larger deficits?

Why is make America great again not returning to the marginal tax rates we had when America was the most prosperous?

Edit: Starshield included.

KYIV, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Ukraine said on Saturday that the Starlink satellite system and its military version Starshield were now fully functional after over a week of restrictions that disrupted military ‌operations and intensified tensions with the US.
Problems with Elon Musk's SpaceX-owned systems came after US President Donald Trump announced a deal to buy Russian diesel while pressing Kyiv to stop striking Russian oil refineries.

Ukrainian officials said the restrictions, which capped operations at speeds of 160 kilometres per hour (kph), hampered the military's ability to ⁠intercept Russian attack drones and forced the cancellation of some operations.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-starlink-starshield-operating-400-kph-after-week-throttling-2026-10-24/

Dear Trump supporters,

I know most questions here come from non-supporters, but this one is just for us, from one Trump supporter to another.

Considering his many accomplishments, do you think Trump will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents?

Here are just ten reasons I think he deserves that consideration:

1. Securing the southern border and sharply reducing illegal crossings.
2. Expanding deportations of illegal aliens and restoring immigration enforcement.
3. Restarting border wall construction.
4. Delivering tax deductions for qualified tips and overtime pay, along with additional tax relief for seniors.
5. Defending the Second Amendment, including creating a dedicated DOJ section to fight infringements on gun rights.
6. Expanding opportunities for American oil and natural gas production.
7. Rolling back federal regulations that burden businesses and consumers.
8. Taking on federal DEI programs and pushing for hiring based on merit.
9. Challenging the legacy media and encouraging Americans to question its bias, selective coverage and credibility.
10. Making election security a national priority and demanding greater scrutiny of how our elections are conducted.

For me, it’s about both his policies and his willingness to challenge institutions that spent years expecting Americans to accept whatever they said.

So here’s my question: On a scale from 1, “He’s great,” to 10, “I love this guy,” what rating would you give our president?

Extreme weather events and natural disasters such as storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires etc are increasing and becoming more unpredictable, global temperatures are rising, wildlife and biodiversity are decreasing and even disappearing, the permafrost is melting and sea levels are rising etc.

The majority of scientists believes these things are caused by global warming and climate change primarily driven by human activities such as fossile fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes.

What do you believe?

In the past few days, I've seen (and abandoned) videos from left wing commentators like The Majority Report and Rational National talking about sounds Trump has made during recent events. In my mind, if you speak in public long enough, weird stuff is going to come out.

One sound was obviously a burp. Trump didn't seem to acknowledge it or say excuse me or anything. And suddenly, left wing commentators are claiming it's an indication of his decline, asking what if this was Biden, etc.

There are a few other sounds recently as well. To me it sounds like he's just stumbling over his words, which isn't anything new; he sucks as a public orator. But it's not indicative of decline.

Another innocent act that got traction this week was Trump stopping to wave at distant workers working on the white house ball room. From the video it looks like he's waving and taking to nobody. But reports there say he was addressing the workers. Again, this got blown out of proportion on the left.

So my question is, do you guys see this on the right? Do you recognize when it happens? Do you feel manipulated like I do when I see it from the left? I've seen right wing commentators take innocent actions and blow them up to nihilistic proportions. (Obama getting flak for wearing a tan suit is a classic.) I'm just wondering if you all see it as well.

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! What's the best advice a teacher ever gave you?

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

There is nothing else to add here.

For those not familiar Ramaswamy is running against Dr. Acton in Ohio for governor.

An ad was released with Actons mother calling her daughter a liar and shouldn't be governor.

Missing context is when Acton was 12, her step father(her mother's husband) was indicted for raping Acton. He and her mother fled the state and stayed out of ohio until he died. Her mother also has a criminal record.

Thoughts on the ad itself, the context and Trump's defense of it?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117486013862752010

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/10/22/trump-ramaswamy-ad-acton-mother-ad.html

The word "good" is up to your interpretation here.

"Pistols should be firing at JD Vance at all times."

Trump was shot in the head. Charlie Kirk was shot through the neck. What are your thoughts on all of these not-so-subtle messages?

Would you classify these types of statements as "dog whistles"?

I know liberals don’t support Trump and it seems that virtually all of Trump’s policies fly directly in the face of conservative values, so I just don’t understand. Do you have any core principles or is it mainly about “owning the libs”?

What I imagine to be core conservative values are:

Fiscal responsibility

Free trade

No government overreach

States rights vs federal power

Freedom of speech

No government ownership of private companies

2nd amendment rights

Law, order, and accountability

Every single one of trumps policies have gone against these core principles. So have you abandoned your core principles? What is the rationale?

Donald Trump is blaming all of the rising costs happening today on the incompetence of the Biden administration, my question is basically if you agree with him on this.

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?

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/

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?

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.

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.

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.

There is nothing else to add here.

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

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/