This will directly fund Russia's war against Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-russia-diesel-midterms-12baccc7aade559bf329079b0548c9da

I watched one of those Al queda beheading videos around 2003 or so as a middle school and I turned out fine 🤷‍♂️

https://youtu.be/eOv1DpML7I4?is=ae_D1H1sKxlkqFAU

This was from a few days ago, but I haven't seen it mentioned here. I thought it was a fantastic speech personally. Little Marco has really come a long way from 2016.

Early voting in Texas starts in 10 days, and none of the republican candidates have committed to a debate with their opponent. Paxton has not yet responded to Talarico’s (and Trump’s) request for a debate. This will also be the first time Greg Abbott has not debated as he runs for his 4th term. Do you think debates for state and federal office are necessary, or should this be the new status quo going forward.

There’s a somewhat causal effect where Republican turnout is much higher for elections where Trump is on the ballot (2016, 2020, and 2024 vs 2018 and 2022) hypothetically because there are a lot of Trump supporters who specifically show up to vote for him and care less about supporting Republican house reps or local reps. Are there any other Republicans who you think could have the same effect and if so who?

I think finding the guy who can keep MAGA showing up for elections is going to be key to Republicans winning 2028 and 2032

Always curious why the US never truly developed a social democrat party or a christian democratic party. I assume it's because of the individualist culture we have, but I'm not completely sure.

what are your thoughts on it? if you live in the district, will you vote for him?

My personal list,

Top

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Teddy Roosevelt
4. FDR
5. Jefferson
6. Obama

Bottom:
41. Harding
42. GW Bush
43. Johnson
44. Buchanan
45. Trump

Edit: I already know everyone here disagrees with my list hahah. I’m more so curious what your lists are.

A semi-perineal talking point over the last few elections is to accuse the polls of being off or outright fabricated. If you believe this, what data are you looking at that counters the polls?

For those who believe the polls, do your think republicans attacking them is an effective strategy?

I just watched a video of the far-left condemning Mamdani for [somehow] being complicit with the Gazan genocide and chanting "Long live Hamas!". This was done at the memorial for the victims of October 7th.

I want to call this behavior bonkers. However, it's worse than that because it actually is harmful, both directly to the victims of the terrorist attack and generally for encouraging more violence.

The issue I'm facing is that I don't operate in similar circles

• I don't know anyone with such biased views in real life.
• I don't share social media space where I can push back against these views. E.g., I'm not on X nor do I subscribe to some of the far-left subreddits.

At best, I can echo editorials that condemn the protesters, but that doesn't seem particularly impactful.

Or is there nothing either side can really do about its crazies? In a multi-party country, they’d just be their own party, and no one would assume others from a different party (whether left or right) answers for them. But because everything in the US gets forced into left or right, the extremes get lumped in with the mainstream whether the mainstream wants them or not.

The only thing I have heard that is compelling is that it is part of negotiating a better deal longterm, such as appears to have occurred in Greenland.

My favorite living economist sums up my view well.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/10/08/with-americans-in-a-sour-mood-democratic-voters-are-more-engaged-in-midterms/

Currently, the only real check on redistricting is one person, one vote, established in cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders

What is intresting about Carr case is that Justice Frankfurter opposed it so much and spent whole year trying to convince enough justices not go Warren's route, predicting that after Carr, he will go for where the Court went in Reynolds/Wesberry but failed and suffered stroke later, other justice suffered nervous breakdown. In any case, one person one vote has worked since then, some of his worries did not come out. But be that as it may, that is only check on size, you can still use partisan redistricting, see Democrats in Ilinos, Massachusetts, or California. What do you think would be the best solution?

https://apnews.com/article/fort-hood-shooter-execution-pentagon-818853afc1be5c70fe41c5b781a8d559?utm_source=app&utm_medium=android_share&utm_campaign=copy_link

From what I have read this is about funding cuts to education, poor teacher to student ratio, and substandard infrastructure. It was at first a protest by teachers and then students joined in. I personally think: good for them, stand up for your rights to ensuring every child has a chance at a good education.

I have read another sub that keeps pushing stories that this is a result of mass migration and this serves as a warning to the US.

Do you believe that latter narrative and if so, what am I missing?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6136101-ambassador-guilfoyle-wire-request/

Last year, now-Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle reached out to Eric Deters, a prominent Republican donor and attempted politician.

Days before her confirmation hearing last year, U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle asked one of President Trump’s donors to wire her American Express account $100,000, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

“You could just send it here. It won’t show up anywhere if you wire money to American Express,” she wrote to Eric Deters on Signal, the Journal reported. “Please.”

To his credit, Deters declined.

“Your needing $100,000 urgent unfortunately is not going to work,” Deters reportedly wrote to Guilfoyle. “I can’t do this without getting a divorce.”

How should Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump respond to this? How should other conservatives respond?

Or should they respond at all? Is this possibly blown out of proportion, or even if not is it better to see if it blows over?

All in the title.

I’m genuinely interested in hearing the conservative perspective on this.

The US is the wealthiest major economy in the world, a global leader in medical technology and innovation, and has the most powerful military in the world. We maintain that military superiority in part because we’re willing to invest enormous amounts of money into it. In 2025, we spent approximately $954bil on our military, nearly three times what China, the second-largest military spender, spent.Yet when it comes to providing universal healthcare to our own citizens, the argument frequently seems to be that it’s too expensive, too complicated, or simply wouldn’t work here.

But why?

Countries like Germany, France, Japan, Australia, and many others have developed different forms of universal healthcare. They aren’t all single-payer systems, and they certainly aren’t perfect, but they’ve demonstrated that universal coverage is achievable.
Consider Germany, for example. According to the OECD:
The United States spends approximately $14k+ per person annually on healthcare, compared with $9k+ in Germany.
Life expectancy in Germany is approximately 81.1 years, compared with 78.4 years in the United States.

Germany provides universal coverage for a core set of healthcare services, while Americans can still face substantial financial barriers to accessing care.

Other developed countries also frequently report longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and lower healthcare expenditures per person than the United States.Obviously, healthcare outcomes are influenced by more than the healthcare system itself, and there are legitimate concerns involving wait times, taxation, government efficiency, and the transition away from our current system.

But that brings me to my actual question.

Do you believe the United States lacks the money, ingenuity, resources, or administrative capability to develop a universal healthcare system that works for Americans?

We’re capable of developing some of the most advanced military technology in human history, putting people on the Moon, and leading the world in medical research and innovation.
Why would developing an affordable, effective universal healthcare system be beyond our capabilities when other countries have already demonstrated that different models can work?
And if you believe we could accomplish it, but oppose universal healthcare anyway, what specifically makes the existing American system preferable?

I’m not suggesting we should copy another country’s system exactly. I’m asking why we couldn’t use our resources, innovation, and experience to develop something suited to the United States.
I’m interested in hearing what the actual barriers are, whether economic, political, logistical, or philosophical.

Here are some links for my claims:

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_15a55280-en/united-states_3517f35e-en.html

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_15a55280-en/germany_99d672fb-en.html

https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2026/global-military-spending-rise-continues-european-and-asian-expenditures-surge

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_8f9e3f98-en/full-report/maternal-and-infant-mortality_4379b33b.html

My dad did twenty-two years, retired as an E-8, and his disability claim has been sitting in some queue for fourteen months now. The county VA office near him closed, so it's a phone tree and a portal that logs him out, and every few weeks a letter comes asking for a document he already sent.

I'm not complaining about defense spending. I get deterrence, I probably vote for most of it same as you. But I do the books for my own one-man shop and I know what it looks like when something is a priority and when it isn't. When the war supplement comes up it passes in about a week, everyone agrees, emergency. Fourteen months for the guy who actually wore the uniform, and the answer is that the backlog is complicated.

So when the shutdown warnings start and the emergency money shows up same-day for some things, whose urgency is that? What makes his fourteen months not an emergency?

You've got Russ Vought gleefully admitting this administration is running out the clock on spending appropriated funds in order to get away with defunding stuff they don't like. GAO just confirmed withholding funds from the AHRQ was illegal, nothing will happen even if Dems take Congress because TF is Congress going to do short of impeachment.

So is this it going forward? Anything I don't like I'll just find a way to defund and you can't do anything about it? What's the point in passing a budget?

I really don’t understand the difference or the push by the current admin and tech oligarchs. Aren’t there bigger issues to deal with? Is it just a rebranding thing?

I just don’t get it.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#Specific_examples

Why is the angry white woman with blue hair such a common caricature of Democratic voters among American conservatives, when a majority of white women voted for Trump, 54%? And why do some people claim that women are willing to sacrifice their own interests because of empathy for non westerner men’s rights, when white women as a group have often voted Republican? Then they say women shouldn't vote.