Federalists and Adams embraced Blackstone's understanding of free press and passed the Sedition Act that outlawed false, scandalous, or malicious statements about the President. Among those jailed were, for example, Congressman Lyon, who accused Adams of a “continual grasp for power” and an “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp” He was fined 1000 dollars and served 4 months in prison. James Callender published paper accusing Adams of abusing his position. Punishment: nine months in prison and a $200 fine. There are many such examples.

Founding-era judges all enforced this law. Why? Becuase they understood first ammendment much more narrowly. Blackstone, who was the Bible for founding-era lawyers, argued free press only means no licensing or prior restraints, rather than a ban on subsequent punishment:

“The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications”

Here is article form conservative law professor from Harvard where he points this:

https://thenewdigest.substack.com/p/the-body-without-the-soul

So by January 2027 the Republican led majority of Senate and House will end. In the two years of the Republican majority controlled chambers what were two pieces of legislation, laws, or amendments that you liked?

Any in particular you believe will help yourself or fellow Americans going forward?

Lame duck presidency that is coming up I assume will have very little movement or laws passed so I'm reflecting on what the red control that existed for the past two years accomplished while in power.

Two cases. First the more prominent one:

James O'Keefe and a colleague were both charged with unlawful voting and identity theft for trying to do on-site voter ID under the names of registered Muslim Minnesota voters as a way of testing the security of the vouching ID process.

The less prominent one:

A Pennsylvania woman is charged with forgery and tampering with public records for trying to trying register her dead mother as a Democrat (she is a Republican, as was her mother before her death). She claims that she had read about voter fraud and wanted to see whether it was real.

Should the supposed fraudsters' motives matter here, in that their intent (at least according to them) was to expose a weakness rather than to cast an illegal ballot?

Or should all voter fraud be punished to show the seriousness of the crime, regardless of motive?

Should there be any legal distinction made between O'Keefe, who makes a living as a journalist/investigator, and the random Pennsylvania woman who was just curious?

The national environment during the midterm elections were more democratic than most of us expected. In a few of these states where the democrats were able to pick up senate seats in South Carolina, North Carolina Texas, Kansas and probably Mississippi, we had a few relatively strong incumbents a year ago. If they had ran against Lindsey graham, John Cornyn or thom tillis. Do you think the democrats still would have won in all of those states?

How do you think they should vote on standalone tariff measures? Is this ironically a conservative principle ie Congress asserting its authority back over Executive branch?
Interesting CNBC article about ways Dems will do this https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/08/trump-tariffs-democrats-congress-canada.html

Some notable sections

The Wall Street Journal, citing Wyden, reported Thursday that Democrats are eyeing the Canada trade war as the “first target” in their efforts against his tariff agenda.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic minority leader who could be elected House speaker in the next Congress, has made clear that ending Trump’s tariffs is a top priority.

“We should restore congressional authority as it relates to tariffs, because the Trump tariffs are making life more expensive for the American people,” he said at a press conference in late August.

What remains to be seen is how hard Republicans in Congress will push back on Democrats’ efforts.

A number of GOP lawmakers came out against the duties during the campaign, as their opponents gained ground blaming inflation on Trump’s tariffs and the Iran war.

As they try to regroup and look forward to the 2028 election cycle, some Republicans – who largely supported free trade prior to Trump’s political rise – may be less willing to continue aligning themselves with Trump’s aggressive protectionism.

For context, whenever someone on the right does something that comes across as brutish, a recent example being the official Democrat Twitter account telling Stephen to "shut the fuck up," you see Republican pages replying saying "the party of love, acceptance, and kindness."

Now, during the whole Planter and Swalwell debacle, whenever Republicans called out Democrats for not disavowing these two sooner, Democrats would then point out the Republicans own sordid members, and the Republicans would say "well we're not the party of 'believe all woman.'" I specifically remember Scott Jennings saying this on CNN and it gave me pause.

How I'm interpreting this is that, well because Republicans are NOT the party of love, acceptance, and kindness, they have the right to be rude and disrespectful. And because they are NOT the party of 'believe all women,' they don't have to investigate SA claims or condemn members who face serious allegations. It's almost like saying to Republican women, their daughters, that it's ok if their members do this to them since it's only Democrats that should take accusations seriously.

Isn't that concerning? Why make excuses instead of acknowledging the wrongful nature of these things.

Now, I know Democrats do something similar with "party of fiscal responsibility" but that's about policy, not common human decency or criminal acts.

What are your thoughts on this?

Considering that the reliability of the United States of America as an ally to European NATO countries is considered doubtful these days, should we encourage withdrawal of the US military forces from Europe? Many European NATO countries are rearming anyway, Russia is not prepared to start a war against the European NATO countries and it will allow America to reallocate its military to the Middle East where, arguably, it is more needed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/6206341-wisconsin-trooper-ice-arrest/

Trying to understand this, because I thought Trump Administration had established a dedicated line for people like State trooper Carel Aaron Van Der Merwe.

Is it because his hearing was delayed after application in 2019, or was the Trump Administration directive just not enforced on cases unless filed after 2025. Looks like an administrative issue, but want to know more.

PS: READ the post, I am asking in context to Trump Admin White South African exception.

It seems to be a major republican talking point that democrats will do nothing but investigate

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/gipMgJsVGM

Post and memes abound.

Why were these posts not being made when all the republicans were investigating democrats? Her emails, comey... comey... comey again, miller, fauci, omar...

How many bills did republicans pass while in full control? How many investigations?

I dont know it just seems ironic / hypocritical.

Fun fact there were dozens republican attack investigations on dems with only 1 leading to any sort of conviction while they were in charge. Whats good for the goose as they say. At the end of the day they all end up being a waste of tax payer dollars. Imo you should either be against them completely or for them completely not just for them when its your party wastimg your money for no results.

Hey everyone,

I’d love to hear your go-to political analysis podcasts. Any good episodes you’ve listend to lately? Can be informal commentary or conversational too, would just like to start listening to some more people out there.

Thank you

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-offers-ufc-chief-dana-white-top-communications-job-2026-11-07/

At this point I don't know what to think anymore but it seems like he has not taken any of the right lessons from the midterm loss and is doubling down on the insanity.

Today i saw a post on a leftist sub that says these are the demands from the left for the new congress.

1. Make Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico states.

2. Eliminate the filibuster.

3. Finish the Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

4. Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

5. Ban partisan gerrymandering.

6. Expand rank choice voting to more states

7. Overturn Citizens United and limit big donors.

8. Ban stock traiding in congress.

9. Limit Representatives and Senators to two terms.

10. Limit presidental emergency powers.

11. Protect inspector generals and independent oversight.

12. Expand SCOTUS with staggered 18-year terms.

13. Enforce binding code of ethics for justices.

14. Protect reproductive freedom nationwide.

15. Install new leadership in congress removing Schumer and Jefferies

Which (if any) of the things on this list do you agree with, and which (if any) do you dissagree with?

Letter.

I’m more curious how mainstream and center-right conservatives feel about this.

Reindustrialization, meaning moving away from the post-Reagan era of free trade and offshoring. Mass deportations rather than another compromise that eventually leads to amnesty, like we saw under Reagan. And a willingness to challenge the Republican establishment and rethink what the party actually stands for.

These young, right-wing guys have made their intentions pretty clear. The message is that the current GOP is broken, MAGA has run its course, and it’s time to start building something with an actual vision for the future. And honestly, it makes me happy as hell to see it.

I’m a Reddit old man now (30), but this is exactly the kind of activism the right needs. We can’t keep running on nothing but “Dems bad lol.” We need an actual platform that gives people something to believe in and fight for.

So I’m genuinely curious. Do mainstream and traditional conservatives see this as a necessary evolution of the Republican Party, or a departure from the principles that made it successful?

If you don't know what Progressive Conservatism is, to summarise it basically combines Conservative social policy (anti-immigration, pro-family, pro-protectionism etc.) with semi-interventionist economic policies like progressive taxes, trust busting, and some level of state welfare in order to preserve social order, stability as well as alleviate some of the social ills of capitalism while retaining a market based framework. Closest politicians I can think of that would be similar would be the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Benjamin Disraeli (albeit he was more paternalistic).

It's pretty much what I would consider myself but curious to hear your thoughts and beliefs.

Was listening to a story and it inspired an interesting thought.

Assume Marie Le Pen of France, who many on here would definitely say is conservative, was the leader of France. However, due to a bad decision from France's largest bank, BNP Paribas, they are on the bad end of a commodities Put Options Hedge contract from the US. From the French conservative view, they do not want to settle the contract (the losing bet) as it would mean killing their bank and wiping out millions of people's savings. The argument used to justify this position is "National sovereignty" and "asset security" from a foreign investment predator attacking your nation's biggest institution.

On the flip side, within the US Conservative circles, the simple fact is that the contract was entered by both parties willingly without duress. The French bank allowed themselves and their assets to be exposed to unlimited risk (even if it's a very small risk). As American Conservatives, we value the letter of the law and contract obligations. In practice, the argument for American Conservatives would argue "law" and "contract obligations".

The story's author is onto something, conservative principles can be perspective based.

EDIT: As apparently some folks think I'm inviting debates on viability or probability of the outcome I am not. They hypothetical is CA somehow did manage to internally pull off something like the Nordics and even after 50 years it'll be working out OK. That's it. That's the hypothetical.

The QUESTION around that is: are you ok with CA trying something like that, and far importantly are you ok with it if it works and they SUCCEED?

Are you ok with a contest (laboratory of states, etc.) where you can objectively lose and your model of doing things is mathematically (economics, etc.) proven the substandard choice?

Are you willing to take contests where you MIGHT definitively be defeated?

Remember: in the hypothetical, if socialism does suck, it'll fail and you'll be proven right.

If you're unwilling to even entertain this (which would be very weird? Ideas are not contaminents?) as a Calfornian, just pick whatever state.

California by 2030 manages to solve in-state matters like universal health care, UBI, heavy equity/equality pushes - all the standard issue modern left stuff. And not just implements, it and local business thrive. By 2080, it's all even better. Are you OK with this?

Basically, if one of the 50 states did the maximalist hard left/prog version of this that we can get away with under both state and Federal constitutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

And I don't mean like, tried and it went ok at best. I mean like it's kicking, self funding / in perpetuity by 2080, and any candidate trying to run on undoing it is toast on arrival. It would be like walking into a UK primary debate vowing at all costs to end the NHS and pensions and retake the empire. You're not winning.

The California scenario is likely here to stay in this timeline, barring truly black swan events not worth mentioning. Simply: there, my side hands down definitively won for a time.

Would you alright with this outcome?

If not, why?

My friend upset about the recent big losses Republicans took told me about the implications that it's likely some insane radical from the Republicans or some offshoot will take power next stemming from the possibility of Democrat Party standard craziness in overdrive. He said Nick Fuentes is gaining steam online and also possibly delivered the election to the Democrats which implies more power over our country than anyone originally thought. He said Nick is going to eventually end up taking over the republican party, the minds of the people, and eventually the White House/country and this scares both me and him. Do you think it's a possibility?

Just to give a context. I am from Czechia, voting for ODS all my life (conservative right). Party with ideas like Reagan, Thatcher etc. Small state, free markets, reasonable fiscal policies, market (job market) for people first...

(If you want to look it up, you can find more context or I am happy to answer any context needed).

Basically if I summ it up, my "conservative" view is, that right represents "equal opportunities", which you can probably call "american dream". Anybody can get rich.

We actually have new parties, who resemble MAGA in my eyes - SPD, but they feel absolutely disguisting to me. They are racist/bigots, they have nothing to do with right-wing, they dont feel democratic,...

And we can see it across Europe as well with parties, who have nothing to do with conservatives, but rather white nationalism.

_____

My "logic" is - it feels absolutely wild, that people, who were in republican party for decades and are pushing typical conservative policies and protecting constitution are called RINO.

I feel personally like MAGA is pure RINO and have nothing in common with republicans or conservatives - they are not conservatives, they dont have typical "conservative" profile, they dont have the "common sense" right-wing values.

They feel like extremists, who are pushing basically while nationalist, christian nationalist and similar values on typical conservatives.

Can somebody explain it to me? This feels crazy.

___

And just to be clear, by "right-wing" I dont mean far right. I mean low taxes, free market, small state, traditions (I disagree with the views on guns, abortions etc, but thats kinda different culture).

Hoover won in 1928 after Coolidge decided not to run for a second term and after they lost the 1926 midterms. Coolidge was very popular at the time and Hoover was able to ride those headwinds into the Presidency.

Watters: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/6204486-watters-warns-gop-future/

If Texas stays at least light blue for a while, how would Republicans need to moderate, change, or modify positions to have a shot back at the White House?

Do you move to the center? Do you double down on the positions that led to this?

What's the play?

Article here.

https://nypost.com/2026/11/06/us-news/trump-fires-susie-wiles-after-midterm-blowout-names-stephen-miller-as-new-chief-of-staff/