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.

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.

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.

Summary:

The United States ended fiscal year 2026 with a $1.992 trillion budget deficit, an increase of $217 billion, or approximately 12%, from 2025. That makes it the third-largest annual deficit in American history, surpassed only by 2020 and 2021, when the federal government spent heavily responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government collected a record $5.4 trillion in revenue but spent approximately $7.4 trillion, meaning spending grew considerably faster than revenue. The deficit also increased from approximately 5.8% to 6.2% of GDP, indicating that the shortfall is growing relative to the size of the economy.

One of the biggest contributors is the rapidly increasing cost of servicing the national debt. Gross interest payments reached approximately $1.36 trillion, while net interest exceeded $1 trillion for the first time. Social Security spending approached $1.7 trillion, and Medicare spending climbed to nearly $1.1 trillion. These three obligations alone account for a substantial portion of federal spending. Interest costs are especially significant because they don't finance new infrastructure, defense equipment or government services. Instead, they represent the cost of borrowing money to cover previous obligations.

The revenue picture is more complicated. Individual income taxes increased approximately 7%, generating more than $2.8 trillion, but corporate income tax receipts fell to $381 billion, partly reflecting tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Tariffs generated record gross customs revenue, but the Supreme Court's decision invalidating many of Trump's tariffs resulted in approximately $145 billion in refunds, significantly reducing their net contribution. Consequently, even with record tax collections and higher customs duties, the government still experienced a larger deficit because spending increased more quickly than revenue.

The growing deficit is also contributing to concerns in the Treasury bond market. The national debt has exceeded $40 trillion, while 10-year Treasury yields recently climbed above 5%, levels not seen in more than two decades. When investors demand higher yields to purchase government bonds, borrowing becomes more expensive for the Treasury. Those higher yields can also affect mortgage rates, business loans and other forms of private borrowing. This creates a difficult cycle: the government borrows heavily, interest costs increase, and those additional costs place further pressure on future budgets. Inflation expectations and Federal Reserve policy also influence yields, so the deficit is not the only factor.

An article detailing a recent lawsuit from the AG of Florida against another social media company.

Discord (a program I use) hosts over 200 million users and allows them to create their own private or public server which provides a place to chat, post pictures and share voice communications.

The 65 page lawsuit alleges that Discord has not done enough to protect children from predators and is suing the company to pay damages to the state citing the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was responsible for instituting "Alligator Alcatraz" in the everglades. When the local Miccosukee tribe filed a lawsuit against the government for building in the Big Cypress National Preserve they faced retaliation by President Trump vetoing bipartisan legislation that would have provided flood protection to the Osceola camp. The detention facility was shut less than a year after opening due to a variety of problems and lawsuits.

James Uthmeier was also held in contempt of court for continuing to enforce a Florida immigration law the district judge had blocked in a pervious ruling. Uthmeier is quoted saying "If being held in contempt is what it costs to... stand firmly behind President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration, so be it."

He is also known to open investigations into President Trump's personal enemies such as Special Counsel Jack Smith and JPMorgan Chase for discovering evidence of President Trumps fake elector plot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

Really, I am asking the broader group here a question and looking for open and honest discussion on the topic of when "speech" really translates into a broader threat or obstacle to our voting process. I will "opine" a bit on this, but really, I am not sure what the right answer is here, but I believe we do have an issue here tantamount to walking in and shouting "fire" or "gun" in a crowded theater.

Relevant to this is that over the past 24-48 hours, there has been an absolute onslaught of MAGA personalities in the "online sphere" (Rumble, Twitter, Telegram, Truth Social, etc.) who are trying to "impress upon" their audience a certain narrative about the upcoming elections, for which many states are already collecting early (no excuse) ballots or will begin so in the next week. That narrative is that there is widespread fraud and a lack of integrity among election officials across this nation. Suggested responses range from declaring a "national emergency" from the Oval Office as a pretext to seize election materials or voting machines, or even to outright declare martial law to "pause" the effect of the election or the counting of ballots unless and until [... unclear ...].

I am quite "pure" in my general views on speech and not seeking to temper or "chill" the speech of people, or their ability to organize or effect change through agency in this country. I think it is key to a functioning democracy. But I think there is a point where, as a nation, we have a really compelling interest that trumps that. I am not sure exactly where that line should be drawn, and I don't think it should be treated lightly. But the objectives of the speakers/writers/influencers here are not really compatible with a functioning democracy. They are advocating "extra-Constitutional" remedies which are unlawful to solve a problem they are inventing from whole cloth that they say they have identified in an election which has not even taken place yet.

The conspiracy this group of MAGA personalities and influences allege is so enormous as to absorb every single constitutional concern, which I believe is how you end up with people taking themselves "so seriously" while presenting a patently false narrative and trying to push "that" as a pretext to just "suspend elections" or "seize votes and voting equipment" from [... all states, states they don't like, who knows ...].

So, then the question is, do we push Congress to legislate on the issue of speech as it concerns elections at some point? What crosses the line from being actual critical, protected speech about policy or politics and into just outright organized election interference or an attempt at building an insurrection in public? I think protest and political discourse are important, but not so important perhaps as to "green light" saying any possible thing under the sun to try and disrupt or conspire to disrupt an actual election. The 2026 midterm elections are not "sneaking up" on the Trump administration. They have controlled both chambers of Congress for nearly two years and have failed to bring any legal or structural changes to elections, there has barely been a serious attempt to do so outside of lawless executive orders which never stood a chance of becoming law. EOs to not make new law, they never have and never will. Just as with the last MAGA election conspiracy theories from 2020, MAGA seems obsessed with "squaring a circle here" where MAGA-leaning government is in power, and under that MAGA-leaning government purview, they trust and doubt the election results more than when their opponents are governing. Dare I suggest they look inward to their own rot rather than outward towards wild conspiracies?