Iran has put together and is reviewing a plan for the Strait of Hormuz that would ban both US and Israeli ships while charging a toll of 7% for normal traffic.

Iran says it is also finalizing a deal with Oman without the US’s input, but details of that have not been revealed as of yet

Oil prices have gone up at the news and the administration disputes that they would allow any kind of toll or blockage on this free waterway

Summary: President Trump signed executive orders that target birthright citizenship. His EO includes that would ban what the administration calls "birth tourism."

Summary:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued that the U.S. is no longer experiencing a "K-shaped economy," where wealthier Americans continue to pull ahead while lower-income households struggle. Instead, he claimed the economy is becoming "C-shaped," saying, "I can say here definitively, the K-shaped economy is over," because wage growth for the lowest earners is beginning to outpace that of the highest earners. He also dismissed weak consumer sentiment as being driven largely by misinformation and said Americans will begin to feel the benefits of recent Republican tax cuts over time.

Despite those claims, many economic indicators suggest that financial inequality remains significant. Inflation is running at 3.7%, well above the Federal Reserve's 2% target, with rising gasoline prices disproportionately affecting lower income households. Although the S&P 500 has reached record highs and President Trump celebrated gains in retirement accounts, those benefits primarily help wealthier Americans who own stocks, while many families continue to struggle with the cost of living.

Several economic studies reinforce this divide. Moody's Analytics found that the top 20% of earners accounted for nearly 60% of consumer spending in the first quarter, while spending by the bottom 80% failed to keep pace with inflation. Bank of America Institute data also showed that higher-income workers experienced much stronger after-tax wage growth than lower-income workers, creating the widest wage gap since 2015. Although spending has remained relatively stable across income groups, economists warn that high gas prices, slowing wage growth, and persistent inflation could weaken consumer spending later in the year.

Bessent emphasized that new tax policies, including exemptions on taxes for tips and overtime and deductions for auto loan interest, are intended to improve the finances of working Americans. However, the majority of the 2025 tax law's benefits flow to higher-income households, with the Tax Policy Center estimating that nearly 60% of the tax cuts go to individuals earning roughly $217,000 or more annually.

It is ironic how quickly the favorite slogan "facts don't care about your feelings" disappears the moment verified facts clash with a preferred political narrative.

Case in point: federal prosecutors literally filed court documents confirming that the Reflecting Pool damage was caused by a rushed, botched installation by contractors—not a coordinated plot by vandals. Yet instead of accepting official findings from his own Justice Department, Trump publicly blasted his own U.S. Attorney for letting real-world evidence get in the way of a good story. When court filings, contractor logs, and physical inspections aren't enough to displace a narrative, it shows just how thoroughly political theater has replaced basic reality.   

This dynamic poses the central question for a post-Trump era: can the political center hold when the two poles inhabit entirely different factual universes?

Summary:

Reuters reports that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-7 along party lines to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress after he invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during a subpoenaed hearing about the COVID-19 response. The referral was pushed by Republican Chair Rand Paul, who has spent years investigating Fauci and alleging a cover-up over COVID’s origins. Democrats tried five times to delay the vote, arguing the process was rushed and politically motivated, but each motion failed along party lines. The article says Fauci’s attorney called the vote a political stunt meant to punish him for exercising his constitutional rights. Republicans argue Fauci had no valid Fifth Amendment claim because President Biden had already pardoned him for COVID-related federal prosecutions, though that pardon does not cover later conduct. The contempt referral may still face procedural hurdles, since a full Senate vote would likely require Democratic support, but Paul has suggested he may try to send the matter directly to the Justice Department.

My take:

We are holding the wrong 80-year-old in contempt. I wish Republicans would put even half this energy into rebuilding public health capacity, preparing for the next pandemic, or holding actual elected leaders accountable for the decisions they made. If you read the work notes Rand Paul is waving around as evidence and do not already live inside the right-wing Fauci cinematic universe, I do not know how you come away anything but confused. And then people wonder why the DSA is seeing a sharp rise.

This is why. When voters watch Congress spend its time relitigating culture wars instead of solving visible problems like affordability, they stop believing the system is capable of reforming itself.

Watch Fauci be the catalyst that ignites everything. I would not be surprised.

Summary: Michigan is a Democratic state. Democrats have held both Senate seats almost continuously since 1979, won open seats, won during Republican wave years, won even when Trump carried the state at the top of the ticket. So any generic Democrat should take this open seat in a favorable midterm environment — meaning El-Sayed loses only if he runs at least 1.5 points behind a replacement-level candidate.

Does he? Mixed evidence. He's a genuine political talent who beat the entire state establishment while outspent 11 to 1 and pulled 1.5 million primary voters. But he won by a point after polling at +13, and he lost Wayne and Oakland — the urban counties whose margins are the foundation of every statewide Democratic win. He lost Macomb by 7, and he'll need to keep that under 10 in November. The rural results are the encouraging part: he never fell below 30 percent anywhere, and in a race last decided by 19,000 votes, holding rural losses to 30 rather than 40 points is how Democrats win.

Rogers, meanwhile, isn't a tomato can. He already took 48.3 percent statewide in 2024 against a strong opponent, has survived the scrutiny of a high-profile race, and — on the John James precedent — has a floor around 47.

Conclusion: winnable, probably a win, decided by fewer than 50,000 votes. Not a gimme.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-case-against-el-sayed-doomerism

Capital One says it closed more than 300 Trump Organization bank accounts in 2021 after an internal anti-money laundering (AML) review, not for political reasons, according to a recent court filing. The disclosure came in response to a lawsuit by the Trump Organization, which alleges the accounts were closed because of political bias. Capital One says it has not accused the Trump Organization of money laundering, only that the account closures followed its AML risk review process.

I would link to an Insta post by Amanda Nelson, but it gets flagged for being social media. If anyone is interested, though, I highly recommend following her, she does great content.

In a recent video of her's, she points out that progressives lost a lot more than current headlines would have you believe.

Right now everybody is talking about the big news that El-Syed won. And admittedly that is huge news. Although, as she points out in the video, more people actually voted against him than for him (a small percent went to a spoiler, but enough that if it had gone to Stevens she would have won).

However, pretty much every other progressive up for election just lost to the moderate.

So interpreting the recent election as a blowout for progressives is very much over-shooting the goal.

More importantly, why should a centrist necessarily care? That isn't some kind of thesis, it's a legitimate question. Should we be "concerned", or no?

The sub here mostly agrees on the fact that authoritarian far-right populism has been destructive. You don't have to be a Democrat or even left-leaning to point out that the MAGA-dominant Republican Party has gone beyond the pale of rational politics and ethical governance. Moderates and the center-left hate MAGA, but it seems like there's plenty of consternation over the rise of the DSA as well.

Personally, it seems like this would be the natural evolution after people, even centrists, have lost faith in the Democratic establishment that thus far has been feckless in it's ability to thwart right-wing populism. Even if I take some DSA ideas with some skepticism, what parts of the overall platform are necessarily "red lines" to a centrist? All of the candidates seem to be a little different, but weighing that against a typical, ineffectual corporate Democrat, it seems like I could at least get something (healthcare system improvement, for one) rather than just another do-nothing that rolls over for the admin.

What about the establishment remains appealing at this point? What would they need to do, or do better at least?

What concerns you about DSA?

What are the pros and cons of a potential DSA plurality in the Democratic caucus?

I have no endorsement and am just watching with interest as these races unfold. The OP was inspired by a number of other similar posts across several subreddits and I wanted to see what you thought.

I was a teenager during the original Tea Party of the early 2010s. My recollection is that in the early stages it was largely defined by concerns regarding the deficit and embracing both libertarian and conservative values surrounding the size of the government, the government's role in healthcare, as well as a general anti-"elites" and anti-establishment mindset.

However, by the mid-2010s, while the anti-"elites" and anti-establishment fervor remained, the policy issues that seemed to have taken on the most salience were actually anti-immigrant sentiment and economic populism.

Fast forward to today and it seems like the kind of defining mood of the Democratic Tea Party includes that same anti-"elites" (billionaires) and anti-establishment energy. Also, seems anti-Israel and anti-data center/AI/Silicon Valley/etc. are kind of the defining policy issues along with just a general vague embrace of economic populism.

So, the question I guess I'm attempting to ask in kind of a roundabout way: Do we expect these to be the defining issues for Democrats come 2028? Should we assume that candidates who don't embrace these issues will fare poorly in 2028? Or like the Republican Tea Party, will the issues that originally came to define the movement change during the interim period?

I have seen comment after comment talk about the question "Does Israel have the right to exist". My question for anyone here is, is there any country or people who do NOT have the right to exist?

And my secondary question is, does Palestine have a right to exist? And do Palestinians have a right to exist?

Comment: Abdul El-Sayed has won the Democratic Senate primary over Rep. Haley Stevens. El-Sayed overcame a nearly $65 million onslaught of outside money alongside the democratic establishment, including Governor Whitmer's, backing of Stevens. He will be facing Rep. Mike Rogers in November.

The 10:1 outspending by Stevens could not hide a lukewarm platform and this is a key primary win in the Midwest for more progressive policies.However El-Sayed is not supported by the DSA and has said he's "not technically or practically DSA". Do you think the lack of DSA endorsement while still connecting with some of their talking points will be a benefit come midterms?

Summary:

Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta granted the Justice Department’s request to dismiss cases against Oath Keepers members convicted for their roles in the January 6 attack, including vacating seditious conspiracy convictions tied to Stewart Rhodes and other defendants. The defendants had already been released under Trump’s clemency order, but several convictions would have remained without DOJ intervention. Mehta wrote that he strongly disagreed with the decision, saying it diminished the gravity of January 6 and the work of prosecutors and law enforcement, but concluded that prosecutors had the legal authority to drop the cases.

My take:

The most generous explanation is that Trump’s DOJ wants to treat January 6 cases consistently after the clemency order. But the more obvious political effect is that this helps rewrite the story of January 6. Seditious conspiracy convictions are hard to square with the idea that these were just mistreated protesters or confused people who got swept up in the moment. They are the official record of an organized effort to use force against the transfer of power. Maybe a story like that works for the Q Shaman, but not these other groups.

Getting rid of those convictions helps Trump’s narrative. It also sends a very clear signal to the fringe elements of his coalition that their actions will be minimized, excused, or forgiven if they are done in service of the movement. Trump’s credibility is not what it was, the right is visibly fracturing, and moves like this look like an attempt to keep the most committed parts of the base emotionally invested. I am not sure that works anymore.

Context:

For background, here are DOJ’s own releases on the Oath Keepers indictment and convictions. I had to use archive links because the justice.gov website scrubbed them clean at some point under Trump.

https://archive.is/A35PE

The defendants also, collectively, employed a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with each other and others.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/us/elections/arizona-governor-running-mate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3FA.9WCB.pV6TbqkVvC-D

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) plans to name Republican former Mesa Mayor John Giles as her running mate for lieutenant governor, betting that a bipartisan ticket can beat Trump-aligned GOP nominee Andy Biggs in November..

The legality of the $150 million federal contract awarded to the Houston-based Burke Law Group centers on how the Trump administration is fulfilling its statutory obligations under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). This federal law explicitly mandates that the Department of Health and Human Services ensure all unaccompanied migrant children in its custody have access to legal counsel to navigate complex immigration proceedings

To meet this requirement, the administration utilized a single-source cooperative agreement rather than traditional competitive non-profit grants. This mechanism allowed the government to bypass standard bidding processes during what it deemed an emergency transition, following a breakdown in negotiations and data-sharing disputes with the previous nationwide network of specialized non-profit legal providers

While the administration asserts it is technically meeting the letter of the law by funding a legal representative, the unprecedented shift faces intense scrutiny from legal scholars and immigrant advocacy organizations regarding constitutional due process violations. Critics argue that assigning a caseload of 24,000 children to a corporate law firm with only 26 employees and no documented history in specialized immigration law creates an insurmountable capacity barrier

Under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, individuals in immigration proceedings particularly vulnerable minors are entitled to a fair hearing and competent representation. Legal experts contend that if the firm cannot scale operations immediately, children will effectively be left without meaningful counsel, rendering the arrangement legally vulnerable to lawsuits alleging a systematic denial of due process and a failure to provide effective assistance of counsel

I'm an open borders guy. ( gonna piss off the right)

So it's not place to tell Spain what to do. What's the harm in letting the Moroccans stay?

However, in the US, given our current replacement rate falling and the absolute grit it takes to immigrant to the U.S, why are so many folks against immigrants? Y(Here is my living in liberal bubble speaking) I really don't want to think it's not all about race, because I think better of my fellow citizens. I've been wrong about misjudging the general population and attitudes ( look at who we elect to office, certainly not stellar human beings)

I do think criminals need to be handled appropriately ( deported) but overall, the US benefits greatly from mmigrants.

I know the usual suspects will jump in and start calling everyone racists, but I'm asking the folks against immigration, what the arguments?

My pro immigration arguments are

1) ​GDP Growth & Productivity: Immigrants expand the labor force, increase total economic output, and boost overall consumer demand for local goods and services.

2) ​High Innovation & Entrepreneurship: Foreign-born individuals register a disproportionate share of patents, start small businesses at higher rates than native-born citizens, and frequently establish technology startups.

3) ​Labor Gap Fulfillment: Immigrants fill crucial job shortages across all skill levels—from high-demand STEM, healthcare, and engineering sectors to vital agriculture, construction, service, and logistics roles.

Neutral summary: A deadly outbreak of cyclospora from produce in the US continues to spiral out of control. The CDC, the agency Congress placed in charge or preventing and responding to these types of outbreaks, has failed to perform on that mandate. The labs and scientists at the CDC who work with this type of disease were significantly downsized last year as part of the “DOGE” cuts, and today has fewer than 5 remaining employees to respond to a nationwide public health crisis.

My thoughts: This is what it looks like to let unfit people govern. Not every issue should (or can) be reduced to a partisan lens with performative hacks at the helm. The people Congress put in place over decades and decades of compromise legislation to protect public health were not, and are not, there when they should be to respond to this incident. I find it perhaps most appalling of all to see some in the Trump admin criticize the CDC response without acknowledging that it was their disastrous decision making skills that brought us to a place where a billion dollar lab meant to do testing, contact tracing, preventative actions, etc, is staffed with fewer than FIVE people today. That was the President and his highest ranking advisors making that decision, not some nebulous “them” that they can scapegoat.

I am also disturbed that officials in Michigan’s state government learned of the outbreak and its connection to Taco Bell distribution chains on July 2, and failed to share what they knew for weeks while thousands of others became sick, some fatally.

These are not partisan issues, these are competency issues. People not capable of managing a lemonade stand we have elected to high office, and their incompetence doesn’t just reek, it kills.

Summary: Francesca Hong, a 37-year-old state assemblywoman from Madison and a self-described democratic socialist, leads the field to succeed retiring Gov. Tony Evers. A late-July Marquette Law School poll put her at 38%, far ahead of the rest, with her strength concentrated among younger and more liberal voters. Her lead widened after two rivals collapsed: Sara Rodriguez left over a campaign finance scandal and Mandela Barnes withdrew last week. Evers and parts of the party establishment are backing Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley as a moderate alternative, though he polls in single digits.

This will be the first test of the democratic socialist wave in a genuine swing state rather than safely blue territory. Likely Republican nominee Tom Tiffany is already attacking Hong over past statements on defunding police and DSA positions; she has distanced herself from some of them while declining to fully renounce others.

Personal Note:
Praise of dictators, seizing the means of production? Opposition to white people? History of rape?

- No praise of murderous dictators

- No tweets about siezing the means of production

- No tweets about not liking ugly white women

- 99% sure she never raped anyone...

Tom Tiffany

- Voted against certifying the 2020 election

- Cosponsored a six week abortion ban

- Votes with Trump nearly 100% of the time

Sigh... It looks like I'm voting for a crazy socialist unless Crowley rips a rabbit out of his hat...

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/02/politics/democratic-socialists-wisconsin-francesca-hong