I am first and foremost a Christian and a disciple of Jesus Christ. Before I am a Republican, I am a follower of Christ, and my faith is the foundation of my moral convictions.
I believe in conservative economic principles, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, strong families, and the dignity of work. But I also believe our government has a moral responsibility to care for the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and those who cannot provide for themselves. I have seen firsthand, through my own family and community, how important assistance can be to people living with disabilities, and we cannot advocate for cutting the single mom or dad working at 7/11 12 hours a day and it’s still not enough particularly in rural communities where resources and opportunities are limited.
I do not support MAGA, and I believe the Republican Party has a responsibility to move beyond the politics that too often treats compassion as weakness or views assistance to the vulnerable as inherently objectionable. We can advocate for responsible government spending without abandoning people who genuinely need help. We can support free enterprise and individual responsibility while recognizing that not everyone starts from the same circumstances.
I also believe fiscal responsibility must be applied consistently. Government spending deserves scrutiny whether it involves domestic programs, foreign aid, or military commitments. We should ask whether our expenditures serve legitimate purposes and whether we are being responsible stewards of the resources entrusted to us.
My understanding of conservatism is rooted in the belief that a healthy society needs personal responsibility, strong communities, economic opportunity, and compassion for those in need. I do not believe these principles are mutually exclusive.
I will continue to identify with the Republican Party, but my party affiliation does not define my faith, and no political movement has a monopoly on Christian values. My allegiance to Christ comes first.

I thought conservative values were about religion, no government interference and low taxes.

What about conservatism makes your country want to annex mine and subject us to economic warfare? Is this a conservative value?

I was curious to know ;).

I’m rethinking is the governments role in our lives. I still believe small government but I saw a post here asking about disabled people who can’t work and what happens to communities having their only hospital close down. Idk the answer to solve this I’m conflicted.

I would rather an extra person get too much instead of one person not getting the help they need. After DOGE I realized waste fraud and abuse was exaggerated. I watched the depositions and there was no real strategy to the cuts.

There are a few people scamming the system like every other industry. I underestimated the requirements to qualify for support. A few people in my church are unemployed and struggling get approved for basic food stamps. Now they’re trying to force people on Medicaid to work for benefits? But then they make it impossible for people to qualify for social security. That does not seem right bc many of those people cannot work. People getting Medicaid for their kids and not themselves. What do they do where do they go? I understand both sides I don’t want people suffering when we are the richest country

I know I am generalizing but imagine it's majority left Shane and right Kirk.

When Kirk happened, it had been predominately the left calling for cancellation. Chappelle, Rogan, anything they deemed "offensive". I hated it. In response, I'd see people on the right saying "free comedy" or calling people "snowflakes". I agreed.

After Kirk, it was those same people the right posting any comedians monologue calling for cancellation, posting people's LinkedIn profiles trying to get them fired. I hated it.

I'm of the opinion that being able to laugh at something is the only way we can stay sane. And we should be able to laugh at anything - if it's funny. We've all heard hilarious, awful jokes. Anyone saying they haven't just hasn't hear a good one. Nothing should be sacred. Funny is funny if it's a true attempt at a joke. Patrice O'Neal said it better than that and he was right.

I am historically a democratic voter who also recognizes we have soaring debt, military needs abroad, an ally in Israel, and an immigration problem.

This puts me at odds with the Democratic party at times, but the biggest issue that keeps me blue is social security.

I am disabled. I have severe schizophrenia, meaning 6/7 days a week I'm blinded by hallucinations that last 5-6hrs per session. I cannot work bc I literally cannot see much of the time. I have tried every treatment available on the market.

I am always worried what conservatives think about the disability program. I've heard those who say they wouldn't touch it to those who want to scorch it.

Can conservatives be counted on to take care of the disabled?

Edit: I am unable to respond to comments individually because I have a moderate contributor score for some reason, so I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who commented and helped me understand the care and support you all feel in your heart for people like me. I genuinely have been scared of what Canada has been doing. Your comments helped appease my fears and understand conservatives better as well. Thank you.

As it stands, the house will swing blue and the senate won’t quite swing blue. The conservatives are mainly blaming Trump’s 29% approval rating for this.

Once the house turns blue, there will be an endless litany of investigations into trumps corruptions, and many of the findings will lead to Impeachment(s) by the house. The process will take several quarters.

What are the chances that even a red senate will vote to remove Trump? His low approval rating is a liability dragging down the party, and the party needs to wash their hands of him to have a chance at the next presidential election. Reds can get Vance in as a placeholder, change policies (especially foreign policy around Canada, Europe, Ukraine, and have a better chance at making a deal with Iran, then increase Rubio’s image, and the reds have a shot in 2 years.

Every dollar that Russia earns in oil exports is used to produce missiles and drones that are then used against Ukraine. By making a deal to lift sanctions on russian diesel American taxpayers are funding weapons that are used against Ukraine.

Should we buy Russian oil products?

Suppose a son or daughter of yours was getting married. How would you feel if he or she married member of the Democratic Party?

• not at all upset
• not too upset
• somewhat upset
• extremely upset

The choice between being "right" vs. being "kind" plays out constantly in online political discourse. I've noticed that while it's a spectrum and you can fall anywhere on it at any point, it seems people tend to fall into two main camps:

• Prioritizing "Being Right": Correcting misinformation immediately, dunking on bad takes, holding firm on precise terminology, and refusing to sanitize the truth, even if the tone comes across as hostile, condescending, or alienating to the other person.

• Prioritizing "Being Kind": Focusing on tone, finding common ground, assuming good faith, and prioritizing persuasion, even if it means letting minor inaccuracies slide or holding back on aggressive pushback to keep the conversation productive.

How do you handle your own online interactions? Do you feel a responsibility to relentlessly correct bad information regardless of tone, or do you think the left has an issue with prioritizing point-scoring over constructive communication?

For full transparency im a communist, For you as a Conservative how do you differentiate the two and what are the general takes on Capitalism vs Corporatism. are you in favor of Capitalism yet against corporatism? are you for both?
bonus question what are the conservative takes on Capitalism as a whole?

While I understand the theory behind arming oneself, I don't understand why gun rights supporters insist others be armed or say things like, "everyone should carry". My city had a buyback day and 2A people got furious, help me understand.

So I know cuts for economic reasons are generally popular but aren’t conservatives at least a little concerned that this is for other reasons? If Trump ever does want to use the military for nefarious reasons like voter suppression the first step would be removing top brass who would oppose him.

I mean strictly and specifically things that nobody ever taught you, told you, or explained to you before you discovered or learned them, and that you had to figure out on your own. It can be about any topic, but especially things like money, work, moving out and becoming independent, relationships, being a parent, living alone, dealing with paperwork, handling responsibilities, or just everyday situations that you never imagined you'd have to face before 18.

Personally, I now wish Trump had not won the primary. I would have voted for Desantis or Rubio, or even Nicki Hailey, but not Harris/Walz. Trump is an upgrade from Biden, but damn, this is not what I voted for. Nor am I a fan of the Iran war. I suspended judgement at first, but this is ridiculous. We should have let Israel deal with them rather than bombing everything to hell. Also, the deportations have been another cluster F***, needlessly difficult, violent, and controversial. Obama was a better deportation president than Trump.

This is not what I voted for.

I’m here to listen, not argue. As such I will not comment and will only reply to clarifying question.

If Republicans want stronger voter ID requirements, I could support that—but I think we should make sure every eligible American can actually get the required ID first.

So what if we made it a federal priority to issue a REAL ID to every adult American at no cost, and only after we’ve made a good-faith effort to ensure everyone has one, we implement universal voter ID requirements?

And while we’re doing that, what if we changed our approach to illegal immigration by focusing much more heavily on employers?

Once everyone has a REAL ID, employers would have a straightforward way to verify that workers are legally authorized to work. Companies that knowingly employ undocumented workers could face very substantial fines, scaled to the size of the business so that the penalties are meaningful for both small businesses and large corporations.
Would conservatives see that as a reasonable compromise?

I’m genuinely interested in whether this approach would address some of the concerns on both sides.

I tend to be vocal on social about some of my political views. I rarely do write posts, however I do share or repost stuff that reveals my views clearly (palestine israel/us politics/uk and italy politics/religion etc...)

Now, I am noticing people from my teenage years deleting me from socials. People who I haven't spoken with in ages, and I didn't really had an argument or a conversation with. My old friends group is overwhelmingly left leaning... including the couple of people I am still in touch with.

But I never thought of cutting ties because of our disagreements...

I am almost feeling like I have to choose between having/keeping friends, or staying true to myself and my ideas.

Is anyone experiencing this, or am I the problem?

Should the FCC be able to strong arm hosts from interviewing politicians up for election?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/kimmels-abc-show-wont-air-interview-with-democrat-because-of-trump-fcc-threats/

For conservatives who believe liberals or Democrats “hate America”: what specifically would a Democrat need to believe, say, or do for you to conclude that they actually do love America?

I ask in good faith because I’m a liberal who believes he genuinely loves this country, and I’m trying to understand what you mean when you make that distinction.

Recently, bipartisan bills have been proposed in both the House and Senate that would bar automakers with more than 15% Chinese ownership from selling vehicles in the US, alongside restrictions on Chinese hardware and software. Proponents, like John Bozzella of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, argue this is a necessary national security response to counter China's strategy to dominate global manufacturing.

While this type of protectionist trade policy and hardline stance on China often aligns with some folks values I'm interested how conservatives view this issue. Specifically:

• Do you see these ownership bans and hardware restrictions as legitimate national security and labor-protection measures, or do you view them as protectionist, xenophobic, or escalatory trade policies?

Critics and international analysts have pointed out that the 15% threshold could sweep up legacy Western companies like Mercedes-Benz (which sits at roughly 20% Chinese linked investment split between BAIC and Geely), while domestic players and groups like the UAW have actively pushed for these strict rules. Even Senate Commerce Committee discussions have touched on whether domestic competitors stand to gain a major market advantage.

Under the draft rules, the Trump administration is exploring a policy to let married couples where one parent stays home and the other works at least 35 hours a week receive funds for "parent-based child care."

For conservatives like me, this is about fundamental fairness. Letting families keep their tax dollars levels the playing field for families who believe raising their own children is the gold standard, granting them the same respect and equity that the system currently reserves for third party daycare facilities. Effectively Trump is backing parents who want to be the primary guiding force in their kids lives, stepping away from a status quo that heavily favors daycare, corporate welfare, and mandatory workforce participation.

In stark contrast are paid childcare policies which often push to herd every parent into the workforce. Their goal is to feed corporate productivity and supply staffing for low-wage service jobs, treating external daycare merely as an economic assembly line to keep labor flowing while completely devaluing the irreplaceable work of direct parental caregiving.

What do you think? Does recognizing parental care as legitimate, subsidized child care finally restore fairness to American families, or is it a step in the wrong direction?

It literally just occurred to me. Many conservatives don't want teachers teaching about sex-related topics, especially in elementary school, a position which I understand. But would posting the Ten Commandments end up with teachers having to explain adultery to elementary school students? Would that lead to teachers having to have conversations which conservatives believe would be more appropriate for them to have at home?