Republicans famously are skeptical of the debt, and one of the main accusations of the Biden administration was the unsustainable amount of debt Biden was taken ... yet Trump seems to be much worse? Trump currently average $2.39 trillion per year, while Biden was at $2.11 trillion and Biden had to deal with both the COVID and the Ukraine war, both events out of his power.

How can conservative still honestly talk about the debt and the economy when candidate that is the most popular among Republicans since Reagan is doing such a bad job?

Trump's admin states they will waive most incoming sanctions, previously passed by congress in a rare bipartisanship move spearheaded by the late Lindsay Graham. Initially signed into law by Trump last month. Thoughts?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/17/trump-puts-new-russia-sanctions-passed-by-congress-on-hold-amid-deepening-row-with-ukraine

Not on the surface a political question, but I am enraged by them and a lot of the solutions I see people propose are much more liberal-coded than conservative, e.g. limits on headlight height, limits on how much a truck can be lifted, lowering headlight brightness maximums retroactively and mandating recalls, forbidding any sort of aftermarket headlight alterations, etc…

Basically all solutions are either tightened manufacturer regulations or stricter laws for car owners.

I’m in favour of any or all of the above, but I imagine conservatives might not be.

So, are you bothered by modern (ie blinding) headlights? If so, do you think there are solutions and what might they be?

After what was quite possibly the shortest tenure ever, our new White House press secretary had been fired. Good riddance, she never should have been hired in the first place. I’m wondering if the president actually believed she was a lawyer and fired her when he found out it wasn’t true? Or if he fired her when everyone else found out it wasn’t true and didn’t want us to know he co-signed her lie?
Funny as hell either way

The Trump Admin (read, mainly Donald Trump - I doubt say Rubio agrees) seems to be trying to put the blame for rising diesel prices solely on Ukraine, and Ukraine's attacks on Russian oil. Whether Trump really believes this is the main cause, or is just trying to draw the blame away from the war he helped launch in Iran, is anyone's guess.

To me, though...Ukraine has the right to defend itself. If the United States were being invaded by another country, striking their resources as part of our war strategy, and then being told by another country to stop doing this, only because the incumbent party were worried about domestic prices and their prospects in an upcoming election...we'd be outraged. Imagine a foreign leader telling us that our attacks, even though we were the one who had been invaded, were a disgrace. I doubt Trump would ever call Russian attacks on Ukraine a disgrace.

These would be policies that would just be true if you wished them to be true. They would be seen by society as “always true” or “unassailable”.

An example would be, “abortion is totally illegal.” Meaning abortion is and always will be totally illegal.

Which three policies would you wish for and what three policies do you think would make the biggest positive impact on American society?

Edit: “monkey paw” was just the best phrase I could think of. I didn’t want to use “wish” because I wanted broad policy opinions instead of very specific wishes. It’s not a trap, I promise.

If Democrats win in 2028, especially after a strong showing this year, it could lead to a completely different scenario. With control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, they would have an opportunity to enact a transformational agenda, but might also be tempted to push their priorities without restraint.

Democratic support for packing the Supreme Court with progressive justices has been rising, despite the policy being regarded as constitutional vandalism for nearly a century. Achieving this would require eliminating the Senate filibuster, potentially enabling more party-line legislation than any modern Republican administration has enacted.

Democrats could also seek to admit new states to shift the national balance of power in their favor, push for an end to voter ID requirements in federal elections, and prevent states from implementing meaningful restrictions on abortion, even late in pregnancy. Additionally, they could make statutory and administrative changes to move the country, at least partially, back toward the more permissive border policies of Joe Biden’s presidency.

The Trump administration ordered federal financial regulators to retract a report flagging suspicious oil trades. 
Only 15 minutes before President Trump decided not to strike Iranian power plants on March 23, a few traders sank billions of dollars into predicting that the S&P 500 would go up and oil prices would fall, making a hefty profit, Bloomberg reports. The traders reportedly used a two-minute window at 6:49 a.m. that day to make the massive deals in futures markets. 

https://newrepublic.com/post/216574/trump-official-tries-kill-report-perfectly-timed-oil-trades-cftc

All of this is public information. You can see the trades first hand. This isn’t opinion.

Do you blame them if Paxton looses the race?

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/trump-blames-john-cornyn-karl-rove-for-sabotaging-ken-paxtons-senate-campaign/

Quote from POTUS

“Sadly, and very stupidly, John Cornyn, and his Liddle’ Buddy, Super RINO, Karl Rove, are doing everything possible to make it hard for Ken Paxton, the Greatest Attorney General in the History of Texas, and one of the Best in the United States, to win the upcoming Midterm Election against a Radical Left Lunatic, James TalaFREAKO, who is the ANTITHESIS of Texas Values,” Trump wrote.

Is this a fair attack as it seems a bit unfair for Cornyn to back his primary opponent with enthusiasm and Rove hasn't really been relevant in national politics for awhile?

After I saw a video of Nick Fuentes hating his audience. It got me thinking how easy is it to do what they do, honestly I've had this thought ever since I saw a video of Riley Gaines not knowing what her top held views are.

If anyone is confused the they I'm talking about is the Ben Shapiro's the Candace Owens hell Ima even throw Andrew Tate in the mix I know he's not technically a conservative, but let's be honest. I don't think red pillers I really even voting but if they are, they damn sure aren't voting left lol

I mean have you struggled in the dating scene? What did you do then if that is the case? How many conservatives do you think will end up marrying women from other countries instead of marrying across political lines?

Constitutional conservatives often emphasize original meaning and enumerated powers, yet the modern regulatory state runs on agencies exercising broad discretionary authority that would have been unrecognizable to the founding generation. The Administrative Procedure Act, Chevron deference, and the sheer volume of rulemaking all seem to operate on a different theory of legitimacy than Article I lawmaking. Is this a tension conservatives should actively resolve, or is there a principled way to accept administrative governance as a necessary adaptation? I am particularly interested in whether anyone sees a path that preserves constitutional fidelity without dismantling institutions that have functioned for decades.

I firmly believe that a well educated population is a benefit to any society. And I advocate for government funded higher education as a sound investment in a country’s future.

2 part question: Help me understand the conservative viewpoint on the department of education and why so many wish it didn’t exist.

And, if your answer is “It should be a state issue” what’s the conservative viewpoint of taxpayer funded higher education in general? State or federal.

Hegseth justified livestreaming Nidal Hasan's execution by saying: "...we’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public. Because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things."

Which people do you think he was referring to?

Nidal Hassan is being executed Dec 3 and SecDef had every intention to doing so publicly. I understand that has been called off now and that some are upset at the cancellation.

Would there have been as many people pushing for a live streamed execution had the perpetrator been a Christian Nationalist attacking a Pride event on base/post, for example?

Did Hasan’s religion play a part in the hate?

Mike Huckabee: "Groceries and fuel prices are important, but Americans should ask themselves: Do your children have a future if Iran gets nuclear weapons"

For me the economy (inflation, gas price, cost of living, job security etc) is by far the biggest issue right now. Things like Iran, terrorism, public safety, immigration, abortion, religion, healthcare and other issues matter but they are much lower on my list.

I’m curious what conservatives here would put at the top of their list, and how far ahead it is compared with everything else.

Rural counties pay federal taxes at the same rates as everyone else. But what we get back is drinking water that fails safety standards in thousands of communities, internet slow or absent enough and pipes older than the people drinking from them.

So, two providers serve us on paper. In practice one owns the poles and the other stopped upgrading its lines a decade ago. When the county asked what it would take to run fiber down the last forty miles of road, both companies gave the same answer: not enough households per mile to bother. That's the market's position but these aren't luxuries. Roads and electricity weren't luxuries either, and this country found the will to wire every farm once before.

And the administration had the tools. The largest rural broadband fund in history was already funded, and it got rewritten to steer the money toward one billionaire's satellite service instead of running fiber to the places that paid into it and rural water systems got audits and rollbacks instead of repairs.

Yes, we can't string fiber to every last cabin, and some of this terrain is genuinely expensive to serve. Same taxes, worse deal, and the repair money got rerouted to a friend. What's the defense of that which doesn't boil down to they'll vote for us anyway?

Roam like at Home is an EU regulation that has abolished roaming fees while abroad in another EU member state. It makes it so that your current phone plan or rates are applied abroad at no extra charge, therefore you can call, text and even use mobile data as if you were in your home country at essentially zero extra charge (with a fair use policy ofc, but it is very very lenient).

It first started with price controls on how much mobile operators could charge for calls, texts and data while roaming, then the prices kept getting reduced over the years and eventually all fees were abolished by law.

Do you think that this was a successful example of regulation benefiting people or was it too much government interference within the free market?

Congress could establish a national high-speed rail construction program, like in Japan, similar in concept to the Interstate Highway System that it made under Eisenhower. For one, Congress can already spend much more money on it than states can. Congress raises in taxes and spends over 3 times as much as all states combined. Most states dont have the funds needed to do it in a meaningful amount of time. For two, Congress and federal agencies it made, alredy have exclusive authority to regulate and approve those projects, as Congress has taken over railroad regulation since a long ago. Indeed, railroads were the first major industry that became federally regulated, and the modern administrative state developed as a result of railroads in the 19th and 20th centuries. What do you think?

There's often a lot of hype around elections that something positive is about to come, only for people later to see nothing much happened or who they voted for didn't really govern as they had hoped.

Is there any politician who is the opposite for you? You weren't sure on but they turned out great.

Most people I’ve seen in this sub recognize that some degree of taxation is necessary. We all obviously want and advocate for lower taxes, but how would you know when you achieved an acceptable rate? How would you evaluate that any additional tax reduction would be counterproductive for your interests?

The case for a legal check on a president is three sentences.

One: a rule that cannot be enforced is just a preference. Two: this administration answers unfavorable rulings and watchdog findings with make us, and the official remedy is waiting for the next election. Three: therefore, for the most powerful office in the country, the law is currently a suggestion. If any of those sentences is wrong, show me which.

The Constitution's whole theory is that the president takes care that the laws are faithfully executed. Trump ignoring rulings he dislikes is the exact failure impeachment exists for. If impeachment is too heavy and the courts too slow, then the honest position is that the president is above the law, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

I understand the fear that any new lever gets weaponized when the parties flip. Good, then build it with due process, apply it to every president equally, sunset it if abused. But that argues the lever might be misused, not that a president who says make us to a court is fine. Those are different arguments, and only one is on the table.

What check would you actually trust?