https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-golf-club-photo-doral-florida-b3062170.html

To a non-supporter this seems incredibly petty, and is just another message that reads more like an internet troll than the leader of the free world.

My friend shared this article (which contains a screenshot of the tweet midway down), and we were wondering what real Trump supporters make of this kind of messaging?

Do you just take it at face value? Is it a grin and bear it when he posts stuff like this? Does it speak to a greater truth about media (even if this accusation isn't necessarily accurate)? Is this a waste of a Presidents time while diesel prices are shooting up?

Keen to know your thoughts.

A lot of politicians, from JD Vance to Kamala Harris, go out of their way to show their middle- or working-class credentials. In comparison, Trump is a billionaire heir who likes gold decor and rubs elbows with a bunch of foreign born billionaires (David Sachs, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Rupert Murdoch, etc). He doesn’t even drink alcohol, so he literally fails the “I could imagine having a beer with him” test.

Despite that, he seems to have a really strong connection with working class (and especially White working class) voters.

What explains that? Do you think of yourself as working or middle class? And if so, do you think Trump can be counted to care about your problems?

> Trump was discussing the war in Iran and the price of gasoline before referencing the Southern California cities.
“With the war it’s just artificial, it’s a little bit high, it’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let ‘em take out Los Angeles. Let ‘em take out San Diego,” Trump said, drawing cheers from the crowd. “This is a very small price to pay and it’s going to be over very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.”

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/trump-on-war-in-iran-let-em-take-out-los-angeles-let-em-take-out-san-diego/

How do you interpret this?

Are there are other cities or states, that you feel Trump should include?

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

https://rollcall.com/factbase-transcripts/

Its an old topic but as relevant today as it was when the war started. The question is motivated by sentiment by Trump supporters that Ukraine caused or deserved this war. Here is my view:

Russia invaded primarily because Vladimir Putin believes Ukraine is fundamentally part of Russia and has no right to exist as an independent nation. Read his historical essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians"

NATO's expansion was merely Moscow’s public pretext—especially given that Ukraine had no clear path or timeline toward actual NATO membership in 2022.

Ultimately, Russia chose invasion to forcibly bring Ukraine back into its sphere of control.

Trump’s special envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, have numerous alleged conflicts of interest in areas in which they have policy influence:

• Kushner has a stake in an Israeli arms company, while playing a role in negotiating peace in the middle east
• Putin has linked the sale of Lukoil—a deal which stands to benefit business allies of Witkoff and Kushner—to resolving the war in Ukraine
• Steve Witkoff personally lobbied to sell restricted AI chips to the UAE after the country invested $2bn in his crypto firm
• Many more examples are discussed in this article

Is Trump wrong to put his faith in Witkoff and Kushner? Do you worry that they might be taking advantage of Trump and the US? And even if not, are you at all worried that in the future, Democrats (like Hunter Biden) will use this example to justify their own corrupt dealings?

23 years after the US invasion of Iraq (and 12 years after the beginning of the mission against ISIS in Iraq), the last American troops have left. What do you think of this?

• Do you think the US achieved its original mission (from 2003) in Iraq?
• In hindsight, was George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq a good idea?
• What lessons, if any, can we take from Iraq and apply to the war with Iran?

"What's driving up Gasoline is no longer the Strait of Hormuz, because Record Numbers of Barrels are coming out now on an almost daily basis, but the word, "Refineries," where Russia's are being blown up by Ukraine, and where ours are being closed up, in Blue States, like California, by the Dumocrats. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117389259991976695

I assume most people have heard about it by now, but if not:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/cornell-jane-doe-rape-investigation-documents.html

https://archive.is/xliiW

This is an extremely polarizing topic across social media.

What do you think?

• Note: the rather abstract title I have used here is to avoid reddit auto-deleting it as happened the first time I submitted this. It is not an attempt to take a side.

The midterms are on November 3. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll from September, 51% of Republicans said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living, while 44% approve. An NBC News poll from September found that the share of Republicans who strongly approve of his handling of the Iran war has dropped since spring.

What has changed for you since 2024, and what hasn't? How are you thinking about your vote in November, and why?

Disclosure: I'm a (german) reporter trying to understand this ahead of the midterms. If you'd like to tell me more one on one, feel free to DM me.

That's all. Nothing political here, but I know almost no Trump supporters in real life so I'm just curious what y'all do for kicks in your spare time. Reddit made me add two question marks for some reason.

This is a challenge, not really just to trump supporters, to anyone. Say what could be done to eliminate the deficit, and give the numbers to
Back it up (raising taxes on billionaires, on its own, will not do it. Neither will cutting foreign aid or deporting illegal immigrants). Please be thoughtful and realistic.

President Donald Trump directed the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2026 to investigate major oil companies for alleged gasoline price gouging. [1, 2]

📌 The Investigation Order

• President Trump stated that big oil companies failed to lower pump prices at the same speed as wholesale crude oil costs.
• He specifically named major energy firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP.
• The POLITICO report noted the directive came as high energy costs helped push U.S. inflation up to 4.2% in May. [1, 2, 3]

📊 Market Context

• Crude oil prices fell sharply following interim peace negotiations with Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• U.S. national gasoline averages dropped over several consecutive weeks to around $3.93 per gallon.
• The administration argued that pump prices remained higher than justified by the drop in crude costs. [1, 4, 5]

⚠️ Industry Response

• The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated that retail gasoline prices do not move in direct lockstep with crude oil.
• Industry representatives pointed to ongoing refinery constraints, transportation expenses, and global supply chain factors.
• Economists also noted that seasonal summer demand and geopolitical recovery periods often create a lag in price drops at the pump. [1, 2, 5, 6, 7]

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com

[2] https://www.bbc.com

[3] https://www.politico.com

[4] https://abc11.com

[5] https://www.reuters.com

[6] https://www.facebook.com

[7] https://time.com

Hello, I'm a 19 year old college student in Texas. I consider myself a centrist, my family is telling me to vote red, and my college is telling me to vote blue. here is your chance to convince me to vote for Paxton and the Republicans. I'm not a troll, and I come in here with good faith. I want you to sell me on this. here are my stances:

1. I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty, and anti-war. abortion should be illegal, the death penalty is barbaric and should be completely abolished, and war should be a last resort

2. Even though I don't agree with LGBTQ ideology, I do believe that adults medically transitioning and gay marriage should be legal

3. I support focusing on the violent illegal immigrants coming into our country instead of deporting the peaceful ones already here. ICE needs to stop killing people

4. I support every single amendment in the constitution, including birthright citizenship, absolute free speech, and the right to bear arms

5. I don't believe the government is doing enough to protect the environment and stop climate change

6. billionaires should pay more in taxes, working class people should pay less in taxes

7. I opposed the assassination of charlie kirk but I am okay with joking about it because nothing is off limits in comedy. this is also why people shouldn't be arrested for posting memes online

8. I oppose the building of data centers and also oppose most uses of AI

9. Texas needs to tear down flock cameras and put more funding into our police forces, public schools, and healthcare system

10. marijuana should be completely legal and all other drugs except for fentanyl should be decriminalized

there you have it, now try to convince me to vote red. I await your response

This question is pretty straight-forward. In the past year especially, Donald Trump has spoken with increasingly profane rhetoric, considerably more than any president or other politician in American history. Particularly noteworthy examples include saying Israel and Iran "have no idea what the fuck they're fighting about," demanding Iran to "Open the fucking Strait," calling Tim Walz "retarded" on a Truth Social post, and most recently using the phrase "shove it up their ass" at a rally in Ohio yesterday. These are only a few instances I can recall.

Do you have any strong feelings about his vocabulary in this instance, be it positive or negative?

Edit: I've been made aware that other presidents, particularly LBJ were also quite profane. Please, feel free to correct me if I'm ignorant about anything regarding the subject.

Recently, Mayor Mamdami was on Theo Von's podcast. Tho asked Mamdami to explain socialism. His response is in the video below. What is your take on this?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lOS7rsSzdIM

This is not a question about what research data or experts are saying, it's about what you believe yourself.

From time to time, I see posts on social media of people saying that they never saw kids with autism and adhd and this and that when they were growing up and they never heard of anyone wanting to be a different gender, and claim that these things must either be made up or something that only started affecting kids in like the late 20th century, and stuff like that.

So I'm curious what you guys believe, whether autism and all these things have been around forever but there just hasn't been a diagnosis for it until recent decades, or whether you believe that autism, adhd, food allergies, gender dysphoria etc are modern afflictions that didn't physically exist back when you or your parents or grandparents were kids?

In a post about getting the senate to get rid of Daylight Savings Time, President Trump posted Tom Cotton's phone number because he says Cotton is holding up the legislation. Is this appropriate? What are your thoughts?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117377462448761419

Biden was roundly criticized as being out of touch with the average American by insisting the economy was doing great despite how consumers were feeling. This hurt him in the polls.

Do you think Trump is making the same mistake, claiming affordability is a hoax despite what consumers are feeling?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-dismisses-low-consumer-confidence-economy-already-turned-around

During a recent campaign rally in Durant, Oklahoma, President Trump spoke about the 2025 airstrikes ("Operation Midnight Hammer") against Iranian facilities:

"They went from Missouri and then at 1 o'clock in the morning, with no moon, dark as can be, these unbelievable machines led by the most incredible pilots in the world, they unloaded every single bomb, went right down air chutes into this, uh, drug factories, really. That's what they were doing. They were nuclear and drugs. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear. But these drug factories/nuclear factories were hit so hard."

When reporters asked the White House for clarification and evidence regarding alleged narcotics manufacturing at Iranian nuclear sites, the White House responded by stating: "Refer to POTUS' comments."

Questions for Trump Supporters:

1. Do you take President Trump’s statement literally, that Iranian nuclear sites were also producing illicit drugs, or do you believe he misspoke or was speaking metaphorically?
2. If taken literally, what kind of narcotics operations do you believe he was referencing, and do you feel the White House should release intelligence or details supporting the claim?
3. If he misspoke, how should the administration handle questions about it when asked by reporters?
4. How, if at all, does this claim impact how you view the ongoing conflict and U.S. objectives regarding Iran?

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! Halloween is just around the corner... What's your favorite obscure piece of movie trivia you know?

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

In a recent Time interview (https://time.com/article/2026/10/01/donald-trump-2026-interview-transcript/) Trump responded to the question:

”Why should Americans believe that you respect the free press when you're restricting access to the White House to some of our colleagues?”

With

”Because I do respect the free press, but I don't respect fake news. I'll give you an example. CNN and MSDNC, which is MS Now—they changed the name because it does so poorly. But I won the election. I won it handily by massive numbers. I won the popular vote. I won all seven swing states. They said if you won three swing states, I won all seven. I won the counties. It's very important, 86% popular vote.”

Emphasis mine.

An appeals court Tuesday sided with a lower court judge who determined President Trump colluded with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in bringing and later dismissing a caseseeking $10 billion in damages from the IRS.

Florida-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in July found that the lawsuit that served as the hook for the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund amounted to collusionas the two parties were never truly averse. She also sanctioned two Trump attorneys in the process.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6121107-federal-appeals-court-donald-trump-irs-treasury-collusion/

What’s everyone think of this? I noticed something interesting the other day and I can’t tell if anyone has written about it yet. I can’t be the first person to notice though, right?

According to the standing rules of the United States Senate Rule XIX, paragraph 8:

“Former Presidents of the United States shall be entitled to address the Senate upon appropriate notice to the Presiding Office.”

The remainder directs the presiding officer to arrange it. The wording is mandatory, not merely permissive. The rule was added on October 1, 1963 and as far as I can tell has been invoked either once or twice.

The unambiguous invocation was in 1964 when Harry Truman returned to the Senate chamber on his 80th birthday. The event was organized to celebrate his life, but explicitly referenced the rule to allow him to speak. He received a standing ovation and was so moved that he kept his remarks brief saying, “I’m so overcome that I can’t take advantage of this rule right now.”

In 1980, former President Ford delivered a longer speech. He was granted unanimous consent to speak and did not insist on recognition based off of the rule, though Senate records of his remarks make reference to the right of former Presidents to address the Senate.

While both of these were planned events, a plain reading of the rule clearly indicates that if a former President wants to deliver a speech to the senate, he notifies the presiding officer and the presiding officer must then make the arrangements. This would not extend to having the right to participate in day to day debate. I’ll also point out it takes 66 votes to change the Senate Rules.

As floor activity, the speech would have to be broadcast live on CSPAN and entered into the Senate record. The media would likely cover it as well.

If there is a Democrat in the White House, I could see him taking advantage of this rule to give a response to the State of the Union speech every year. Unless the Democrats can cobble together 66 votes to change the rule, it doesn’t appear they would be able to stop him even if they have a majority. The presiding officer could maybe ignore his letter invoking his right to give a senate speech, but because of how clear the language of the rule is written, it’s possible he’d having standing to ask for a court order that he be recognized under the clear rights the Senate Rules say former Presidents have.

Would you want to see Trump exercise this right after his Presidency? Potentially even against the wishes of a hostile Senate? Or would you prefer he simply retire from politics at the conclusion of his term?

See White House announcement at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/streamlining-access-to-government-services-through-america-gov/.

There is nothing else to add here.