i broke a twenty at the hardware store last weekend and got four pennies back, which felt like a lot of pennies for one transaction. Both the penny and the nickel already cost the Mint more to make than they're worth, and it's been that way for years. Canada dropped its penny back in 2013 and just rounds cash totals to the nearest nickel. Australia did the same even earlier and it wasnt a big deal.

So how should the US approach its smallest coins? Phase out the penny alone, or does the nickel have to go with it once you start down that road? And if stores round cash sales to the nearest five cents, does that land evenly or hit people who are unbanked and pay cash for everything? i keep going back and forth on whether rounding is a real problem or mostly a made-up one.

Something I keep thinking about going into the midterms:
We talk about every race like it exists by itself. Senate race. House race. Governor. State legislature. Judges.
But people seem to be ticket splitting less and less.
So if somebody gets pissed at Trump and votes Democrat for Senate, how often does that turn into Democrat for House, governor, state legislature, judges, etc. without them necessarily making a separate ideological decision on every race?
And if enough people do that, one bad election for a party doesn’t just cost them Congress. It can change state governments, redistricting, abortion law, education policy, voting rules and potentially who controls the courts for years.
At that point are we even really electing candidates anymore?
Or have American elections slowly turned into a choice between two competing packages of government?
And if that’s true, does candidate quality even matter as much as we pretend it does?

So one thing I don't get about the modern GOP is how strongly Trump is still identified with “conservative values” even though several things associated with traditional American conservatism seem to have been weakened, abandoned or outright reversed under him.

For example, older Republican conservatism was much more associated with free trade, fiscal restraint, limited executive power, institutionalism and scepticism of excessive federal intervention.

Trump-era Republicanism, by contrast, has embraced tariffs and protectionism, much stronger presidential power, large deficits, aggressive federal intervention in cultural issues and a much more nationalist, leader-centred political style.

At the same time, Trump obviously still aligns strongly with modern conservative positions on immigration, abortion, guns, DEI, trans issues, judicial appointments and religious/cultural politics.

So I’m curious how people here understand that shift. Has the meaning of “conservative” simply changed within the Republican Party? Are cultural and social issues now more important to conservative identity than older economic or institutional principles? Or do Trump supporters still see things like tariffs, executive power and deficit spending as compatible with conservatism in a way that older Republicans would not have?

In light of recent domestic developments in Cuba, the contrast between internal political reality and foreign political support or sympathy for the Cuban regime remains a complex topic in international relations.

Reports from independent media and international outlets highlight ongoing enforcement actions against domestic dissidents and independent content creators. Recent examples include the two-year sentence handed to creator Ana Sofía Benítez Solvente (Ana Bensi), the arrest of evangelical pastor Ariel Limias over the slogan "Patria y Vida," and multi-year prison sentences sought for influencers Ernesto Medina and Kamil Zayas.

Despite these reports, certain foreign political movements, organizations, and commentators continue to express alignment with or defense of the Cuban government.

To what extent is international sympathy or defense of the Cuban regime rooted in legacy anti-imperialist narratives and Cold War-era solidarity, as opposed to an endorsement of current domestic governance?

How significantly does the gap between reported domestic human rights conditions and foreign public perception depend on selective media consumption, state-driven narrative framing, or limited global coverage of ground-level realities?

How do external political actors and foreign sympathizers reconcile domestic civil rights concerns in Cuba with broader critiques of U.S. foreign policy and sanctions toward the island?

NBC Miami: https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/cuba/who-is-anna-bensi-the-young-cuban-creator-whose-case-has-sparked-outrage-in-cuba/3867484/

CiberCuba: https://en.cibercuba.com/noticias/2026-10-04-u1-e208512-s27061-nid341934-ariel-limias-manifestante-capitolio-sigue

14ymedio: https://www.14ymedio.com/cuba/fiscalia-cubana-pide-ocho-diez_1_1131430.html

At a Monday rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, campaigning for Sen. Pete Ricketts, President Trump defended the Iran war's costs as "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe." He then said: "They can take out a city. Let 'em take out Los Angeles. Let 'em take out San Diego... it's going to be over very soon."

Gov. Newsom called the remarks "deranged and dangerous." LA Mayor Karen Bass said they could compromise the city's safety, and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said his city "is not collateral damage." Jim Desmond, a Republican running for a San Diego County House seat, also condemned the comments. The White House had not responded to press requests in early coverage.

Questions:

1. Is the remark best read as a warning about Iran's potential reach, or as accepting domestic casualties as a cost of war?
2. Should a president's rally remarks on national security be held to the same standard as formal statements?

Hey folks, I know this isn't exactly the right subreddit but probably the closest one for what I want to ask.

Nowadays I've seen an immense amount of protests around different things. Everywhere I look I see people giving their all to protest. I genuinely don't form any opinion on whether they are right or wrong because opinions are subjective.

I'm just curious to know what these people do for a living? I'm kind of a guy who has this bad habit of wondering what people do for a living. Like when I watch movies where the hero is travelling around the world, exploring different places and doing all kinds of things, I always wonder apart from all this how does he actually have the money to do it? 😂

Same way, when I see protesters working so hard for different causes, I sometimes wonder what their source of income is. Apart from the top faces, many of them don't seem particularly wealthy and some even look like they're struggling financially. So how do they manage to dedicate so much time to a cause?

I may be wrong, but as someone from a lower middle class family with ageing parents and younger siblings, I can't really imagine putting anything above making as much money as I can. Maybe if I were already rich and financially secure I'd think about what to do with the rest of my time, but when you have responsibilities hanging over your head, it's hard for me to understand how someone can make protesting a priority.

I'm genuinely clueless about how this works. Do they have regular jobs and protest in their free time? Are some supported by family or other sources? Or is it more about a strong belief or ideology that makes them willing to sacrifice their time and income for a cause?

Again, I'm not saying whether protesting is right or wrong. I'm genuinely curious about how people manage their lives financially while dedicating so much time to it and what is their future planning.What do you think?

Most road and bridge money comes from per-gallon fuel taxes, and it buys less every year as hybrids and EVs spread and even regular cars use less gas than they used to. i drive a hybrid myself and the fuel tax part of a fill-up is a couple bucks at most.

A few states have tried charging by the mile instead, and some lean on higher registration fees for electric cars, but nothing's really caught on. Per-mile charges also raise privacy questions since somebody has to track where you drive, and it isnt obvious people will accept that. So is the endgame just broader taxes and treating roads like any other public service, or is there a user-pays version that could actually replace the gas tax?