I’ve been thinking about Kamala Harris’s comments about expanding the Supreme Court and potentially adding states if Democrats regain control of Congress.

I can understand the argument that the current system may need reform, but expanding the Court also seems like it could create a dangerous precedent. If one party expands the Court when it gains power, what would stop the other party from doing the same when it takes control?

At the same time, there are legitimate arguments for reconsidering how the Supreme Court and statehood work in the first place.

I’m curious how people see this. Would these changes represent necessary political reform, or could they make the institutions even more politically divided?

I don't understand. The files showed just how disgusting those in the Epstein files were and it also showed that Trump was all over it. Why are we not focusing on the allegations laid there vs the ones Trump keeps making up about Ilhan Omar?

Trump may not be running, but his endorsement of a candidate is like placing a vote for him.

This isn't 'bait'. I'm seriously confused as to why this isn't getting more attention. Something is clearly going on here, but I don't see much happening.

This year alone, two different people - both with significant ties to Epstein, and mentioned multiple times in the files - have turned up dead under circumstances that are definitely odd.

A guy in France who recruited models for Epstein:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/22/europe/model-recruiter-epstein-dead-france-intl

And a guy who exposed Epstein's ties to Howard Lutnick:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/10/05/epstein-whistleblower-simon-andriesz-dies-after-exposing-lutnick-ties-what-to-know/

Are connected billionaires keeping this under wraps? Or am I missing something?

I remember when Trump got reelected there was a lot of discussion about how if you were on subs like [r/politics](r/politics), [r/pics](r/pics) and others like them, you would’ve thought that Trump was gonna lose no question and obviously that didn’t happen, and it was seen as an example of how out of touch with the general public Reddit can be, do you think that, with the midterms coming up, that sentiment is still accurate, or have things changed?

Because I can see it now ; he'll release a flood of online posts claiming they won by a small margin, and people will eat it up because they'll think it's people commenting, but in reality it's going to be bots.

I think I saw this happen with the vote in Alberta.. The first day "No to separation" won with 75% of the votes, but two days later I saw a popular post claiming the fight was close! It's like that post got released by error.

Bots will make you believe Trump won, so watch out.

US House passed year-round daylight savings time in June 2026 sent bill to Senate. The law would get rid of standard time and make DST permanent. Let your two senators www.senate.gov  know how you feel.

They tried all year daylight savings time once before in 1974 under President Ford. In December, January, February, for those North of 40N degrees or in the middle or western part of their time zone school children had wait for buses before sunrise often with no street lights. So, parents drove their kids instead which caused traffic jams. Schools changed their hours to 45 minutes later to prevent the jams, which forced business to change their hours etc. The protests were so loud congress repealed it the same year it took effect. It only works; if you are South of about 40N degrees North latitude (Philadelphia PA- Springfield IL - Eureka CA) or in the Eastern part of a time zone like Boston and all of California.

An easier fix since states can pick their time zone, would be for Southeastern States that wish to have all year daylight savings time to put themselves on Atlantic standard time which is one hour ahead of Eastern time. Atlantic standard time would also work for eastern New England since they are in the Eastern most part of the eastern time zone. The question is would Massachusetts want two time zones? California and Nevada could go on Mountain time. States can opt out of Daylight savings time like Arizona, and Hawaii do.

If you accept that they occasionally execute innocent people, why are you okay with the execution of innocent people? The death penalty is different from war. In war, fast decisions have to be made during times of imminent threat and chaos. The death penalty is the opposite. We already have the person in custody, and there is not an imminent threat.

In some cases, a jury may decide a case. But in every case, the police, prosecution, lawyers, judges, and many others are involved, who could be subject to corruption. False confessions are a very real problem. So is jury tampering.

Bottom line: any system administered by humans is bound to make mistakes. Why should we trust such a system to execute only the right people? Especially when you consider that if a guilty person is executed, the investigation most likely ended. And therefore, *the guilty person is still on the loose.*

For the entirety of my life, Russia has been considered a foe of America. Now the most pro-Kremlin POTUS is offering them billions for oil. It blows my mind that this is not getting more attention.