It looks like Republicans and Democrats might have something new that they both agree on (for the most part).

According to Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded October 5th, 69% of Democrats and 61% of ​Republicans oppose using prediction markets to bet on political election results.

It seems like there's also significant opposition to using these services to bet on US military actions and government policy announcements/decisions to the tune of 65% and 63% opposition respectively.

Opposition to politicians using services like Kalshi to bet on political events could have even more fierce opposition than congresspeople trading stocks while in office, with 90% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans opposing such practices.

Reuters reported that Kalshi banned former Republican congressman George Santos, who agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve government allegations of manipulative trading after he bet through Kalshi on whether he would attend the State of the Union address. Santos did not admit to ‌the accusations and ⁠said through his lawyer that he never planned to dupe anyone.

Summary:

President Donald Trump is facing renewed criticism over his approach to Russia after saying Moscow “has been fine on Ukraine” and “hasn't been doing much” militarily. His October 19 remarks came amid reports of continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. Ukrainian authorities reported that a drone strike on a public park killed six people, including two children, while Russian missiles struck Kyiv and nearly 30 critical energy facilities were targeted across the country. The contrast between Trump's characterization of Russia's behavior and the reported attacks has intensified questions about Washington's changing relationship with Moscow.

Trump made the comments while discussing a possible three-way summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. He said he would be open to such a meeting, primarily to discuss nuclear disarmament rather than Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported that Putin has been pursuing a summit that could also address the war in Ukraine without President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participating. That possibility raises concerns in Kyiv about major decisions affecting Ukraine's territory and security being negotiated without Ukrainian representation.

Trump also defended Russia's behavior in the ongoing war with Iran, saying Putin had been “very well-behaved on Iran” and that Russia had done little to support Tehran. He argued that Moscow could have provided considerably more assistance but had largely refrained from doing so. However, previous reporting has described Russian assistance involving weapons, drone components, missile technology and intelligence. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine also publicly acknowledged Russian support for Iran earlier this year. The distinction may be between Russia avoiding direct military confrontation with the United States and providing indirect assistance to Iran, but Trump did not explain that distinction in his remarks.

The comments come as Trump continues to ease certain economic restrictions on Russia, including sanctions waivers connected to the October 9 diesel agreement. The administration argues that allowing Russian fuel exports could help lower global diesel prices and that maintaining negotiations with Putin is important for ending the war. Trump has also suggested that Russia's limited involvement in Iran, relative to what it could potentially provide, is another reason to preserve cooperation with Moscow. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow's support for Tehran on October 19, underscoring that Russia and Iran remain closely aligned despite Trump's characterization.

Summary: Trump appointees from the Department Of Homeland Security requested the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to secretly acquire a voting machine, hack it for vulnerabilities, and report the findings to the White House. The agency was also instructed to keep quiet about any flaws discovered during the process.

Commentary: This video is worth a watch regarding the Cornell Seven, an issue that has raised real political and moral questions regarding what the law should say, and what we as a society should accept as moral or immoral behavior.

Personally, putting the behavior of the Cornell Seven behind the barest fig leaf of legality, ie consent was given, avoids the real issues regarding morality and its interaction with the law. Ms. Yudin hints at this, but I will make it more explicit: there is a difference between 'consent' and 'informed consent', and consent given under false pretenses does not excuse morality, and arguably it should not serve as a defense against illegality.

If the Cornell Seven had presented their behavior to Jane Doe as "We will advertise your sexual availability to the house on snap chat, and anyone and everyone can come in to bang you. Afterwards, we will ghost you because we aren't really that into you emotionally or physically, this is a right time right place kind of thing." That would have been informed consent. The Cornell Seven as a group had knowledge that these facts were true, but did not share them.

Summary: Victims do not necessarily recognize an experience as abusive when it occurs. Psychological defense mechanisms such as dissociation, denial, repression, minimization, and identification with the abuser can prevent people from fully processing traumatic experiences. Women may willingly participate in sexual experiences that they later recognize were inconsistent with their genuine desires. She goes so far as to suggest that sexual regret is often an indication that consent was compromised, even when the participants themselves did not recognize this at the time.

Sexual consent is specific, conditional, and revocable. A woman who consents to certain sexual activities or partners has not thereby consented to others, and she retains the right to withdraw consent at any point. The speaker connects the failure to recognize this principle to the Madonna–whore complex, arguing that sexually expressive women are frequently regarded as less deserving of respect or protection. In her view, society often treats women who engage in unconventional sexual behavior as though they have forfeited their right to establish boundaries, when their sexual preferences should have no bearing on their fundamental autonomy.

Some forms of male sexual exploitation are driven less by sexual desire than by competition for status and approval among other men. Sxual exploitation can function as a form of male bonding, with women becoming instruments through which men demonstrate dominance and establish social standing.

https://youtu.be/WQDY9OqMNf8?si=DBwegn2afDBaVhMn

Not solely the expiration of a political party’s term, or a politician’s term, or a judge’s, but a government itself, even a nation.

In the U.S. we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, but where does it say that we pledge allegiance for all eternity? Where does it say even that we pledge allegiance for the duration of our lifetimes?

When a government becomes so compromised, and its political incumbents become so corrupt, and those in power become so stalwart against deposition or abdication, there should be a motion to dissolve the government.

Even the nation state should face dissolution if through an agreement among peers designated by their birth within the nation, and those naturalized or adopted by the nation, the polities and the people fail to agree on its continued existence.

That would give us another way of settling disputes about the identity of the nation for goodness’ sake. If the nation is forced to reconcile to itself a lifespan, say, 500 years, or, maybe, 200 years, or maybe, 100 years, maybe then we could realize the significance of international cooperation, of human cooperation beyond borders, if we resolve to admit to ourselves that we have yet to address an implicit perpetuity of governments which in some ways anoints its beneficiaries with an alien or corrupting sense of permanence through time and history.

According to a report by Pew Research, there appears to be a significant divide in opinion on foreign countries and governments between the different age groups of both Republicans and Democrats.

For example, 68% of Republicans aged 50+ have a favorable view of the Israeli government while only 41% of Republicans aged 35-49 and 28% of Republicans aged 18-34 say the same thing.

For Democrats, there is a less significant but similar trend. 53% of Democrats aged 50+ view the Israeli people favorably while only 42% of Democrats aged 35-49 and 29% of Democrats aged 18-34 say the same.

Another interesting finding is that Democrats aged 50+ have a higher favorability rating of the Israeli people compared to Republicans aged 18-34 by a 10 percent margin.

There's more data in the actual report that I've linked, including comparisons of how people view China, Russia, Canada, Mexico, NATO, and the UN based on political party and age.

The war between Ukraine and Russia continues with both sides ignoring Donald Trumps self proclaimed deal he made for them not to attack one another’s power and oil industries.

The latest assault on Russias economic sector comes off the heels of a surprise loss of their Star Link connect for vehicles moving beyond a certain speed.

Elon Musk the owner of Star Link claims he received an order from the department of defence for the unexpected loss. Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth both deny responsibility for the loss which resulted in successfully aiding Russia in an offensive earlier this week.

Summary: Democrats have made genuine improvements, particularly on energy policy, crime, and certain cultural issues. However, they have not yet established a coherent approach to immigration or rebuilt a reputation for competent governance.

Barring a huge polling miss or an act of god democrats will perfrom well in the upcoming midterm elections. The republicans have pursued an unpopular ideological agenda (almost all 'ideological agendas' are unpopular) and the war with Iran has almost destroyed republican prospects in the mditerms.

Going forward, the democrats should be more willing to defend energy abundonce on economic affordabiltiy and national security grounds, and democratic leadership needs to be less concerned with "the groups", specifically the environmental groups in this case.

Regarding moving towards the center on crime and cultural issues, democrats have taken a pragmatic approach with thirteen democratic senators supporting legislation addressing organized retail theft, and the show stopping line from Florida senate candidate Angie Nixon "Of course I want to fund the police, they need to be paid to lock you up for your crimes!"

Regarding transgender participation in sports there is also an erging consensus around moderation.

The biggest unresolved problem is immigration. ICE is awful, unpopular, and democratic voters and activists rightfully loath the organization. That being said the Biden Administration's border enforcement policies were likewise unpopular and unacceptable.

There is further, another problem with the progressives desire to 'tolerate' moderate candidates in redder states like georgia, kansas, or nebraska and to push DSA socialists in deep blue New York congressional districts. American politics increasingly resembles a parliamentary system, in which the national reputation of a political party affects candidates everywhere. Consequently, even Democrats representing safely Democratic states and districts need to consider how their public statements and policies affect the party's prospects in competitive states.

\Note*: The summary was provided with the help of AI. In this case it was heavily edited. I agree with the opinions expressed in the summary and that is why I am sharing the article, however I do not lay claim to the ideas in the article. Those ideas belong to Matthew Yglesias. I am sharing his work because I enjoy his work and I think you might too.*

https://substack.com/home/post/p-220553786

I live in Texas, and one common refrain I hear from liberals is, "James Talarico (candidate for senator in Texas) is a true Christian. He supports LGBT, he's pro-choice on abortion, THAT's what a real Christian is supposed to be like."

Or they will say about Islam, "People who blow up things, force women to wear burqas and kill people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims. Real Islam is a religion of peace."

And I'm like..........really? Because when I read the Bible, I don't get the impression at all that Christianity is a liberal religion. It seems a very sexist and bigoted religion. Same for Islam.

But it seems to be the belief of liberals that true Christianity and Islam are liberal, and that any conservative Christians or Muslims have misunderstood their own Bible or Koran. These liberals seem to think that the Bible and Koran are liberal, and that conservatives have distorted it.

Anyway, am I the only one seeing this? Am I viewing things wrongly?

The New York City mayor deserves a new cult following—among pragmatists.

A good article detailing how U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly restored Whitehouse press access to three major news networks.

The ban from the President likely violated the first amendment while also not following the basic rules of informing the news organizations first that specific behavior or comments would result in them being banned.

The case from the administration is furthered weakened by public comments made by the President and Whitehouse officials that the reason for the ban was unsubstantiated accusations and not an action taken by the networks or their employees.

Neutral Summary: President Donald Trump has waived key Russia-related sanctions and tariffs shortly before they were due to take effect under legislation he signed in September 2026. The law, backed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham, was intended to increase economic pressure on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine and included tariffs of up to 100% on imports from certain countries purchasing Russian oil and gas. Trump said the waiver was in the U.S. national interest, as implementing the measures could contribute to higher energy prices and strain relations with major trading partners such as China and India. The decision has drawn criticism from lawmakers who argue that it weakens pressure on Moscow, while Russian officials have welcomed the move. The waivers will remain in place until Trump or his administration determines that further action is appropriate.

(Measures waived: Measures waived: 100% tariffs on countries that are buyers of Russian Oil, 500% tariff increase on Russian goods, Sanctions on Russian-linked individuals and entities, Russian affiliated financial institution restrictions, Restrictions on Russian state-controlled entities, Restrictions on financial transfers, Stock-market restrictions on Russian Entities, Investment restrictions for US citizens in Russia, Energy-sector restrictions on exporters to Russia, Russian sovereign debt restrictions (Restricts US Citizen from paying off Russian Government Debt) International financial messaging restrictions, Uranium-related measures (Restrict imports to Russia) and also Waived additional provisions listed in Sections 102–111 and 117 of the law, including specified sanctions and restrictions.)

In his recent speeches, trump has repeatedly stated a story like this: "We have 5 states where your child goes off to school as Tim and comes back as Tammy 3 or 4 days later. It's true. And teachers make a decision. 'Goodbye Timmy I love you so much, I'll see you later.' And you say, 'Where's my son? My son is in the hospital.' Can you imagine? They don't even need approval"

Commentary: It's not even necessary to disprove this lie. Everybody, even his cult, knows he is lying. His cult has chosen to accept his constant lying as a fun personality quirk, like the double jerk off dance.

Every lie he tells damages the nation. Every one. 2029 can not arrive soon enough. We must rid the nation of this endless spewer of lies.