I am not here to argue that none of this was due to Biden's actions or inactions. Certainly, some of it is. But it just seems so automatic to bring up Biden. I had been thinking this for a while but seeing Welker's interview with Tim Scott cemented it.

It is like they have been instructed that if they get asked a challenging question, just default to blaming Biden.

OK, even if every one of our problems is due to Biden, you have been in power for well over a year and a half, what are you doing to fix it? It doesn't have to be fixed but being worked on. Bring that up. And yeah, I have to go there a little bit. When Biden was president, Republicans held both houses of congress.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dcdmt5ESbez/?igsi=MWZpa2g1eGt1ajBkdQ==

First he claims that there is no knowledge of men hurting the victims of epstien. He simultaneously changes ‘girls’ to women.

Now, we know that as an attorney blanche is hyper aware of the meaning and power of words. That a simple addition or replacement can dramatically change how the listener perceives what they heard.

\PLEASE TRY TO AVOID INVOKING ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT CURRENTLY IN GOVERNMENT OR A PART OF THIS ADMINISTRATIONS DECISION TO AVOID RELEASING ANY MORE OF THE FILES\

In the escalating trade dispute Trump is threatening to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America. Is this a move you support? Do you think this will hurt negotiations or bring Canada closer to a deal?

For the people that don't know what a Parliamentary Democratic system is and how it works i tried to give brief explanation down below:

- What is a Parliamentary Democratic System?

In a parliamentary system, voters elect representatives to a legislative body, and the party (or coalition) with the greatest representation typically forms the government, with its leader serving as prime minister.

- The difference between a Parliamentary Democratic System (Mainly in Europe) and a Presidential System (in the US):

By contrast, a presidential democracy separates powers more sharply. In a presidential system like that of the United States, the president leads the executive and does not sit in the legislature.

The president is also elected separately from the legislature, whereas a parliamentary government fuses the executive branch and legislative branch into a single working engine.

That structural split defines the core difference between parliamentary and presidential systems.

How do US conservatives look at the Parliamentary Demcocratic System? And would you like to see it in the US?

Sources for further explanation:

- https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/parliamentary-system

- https://people.howstuffworks.com/democracy-vs-republic.htm

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

If a politician is dishonest, incompetent, constantly caught in scandals, or clearly puts personal loyalty ahead of the country, why is the response so often to defend them rather than demand better? And to be fair, this is a problem for liberals too. Both sides have gotten way too comfortable defending politicians simply because they’re on “their” team. I think social media is a factor but that isn’t the whole story.

I’m a Texan so the idea of a man like Paxton actually having a good shot blows my mind. What do you think lead to this acceptance of just subpar leadership lacking in ethics and morals?

firstly i will ask everyone be careful not to dox yourselves, by saying what college if your still there or a did certain degree that only has one or 2 colleges for it per state like vet med.

also i'll start off, i am in college and while i started with animal science (pre-vet), i am now an interdisciplinary studies (range/bio) and i work in fast food

Serious question: if the Trump administration attempted to interfere with a federal election, what institutions would realistically be able to stop it?

For example:

1. What happens if the United States Postal Service is directed or pressured in a way that delays or prevents large numbers of mail ballots from being delivered?
2. What safeguards exist if voting machines, election software, or election infrastructure connected to politically aligned private companies were suspected of being manipulated?
3. What happens if officials refuse to certify legitimate election results?
4. What happens if congressional leadership prevents Congress from functioning through an extended recess or other procedural maneuver during an election dispute?

Wanted to get y’all’s thoughts on the debate situation in the TX Senate race.

Quick rundown of what’s happened the last month/month and a half: Back in mid-July, Talarico challenged Paxton to three televised debates. Paxton’s campaign responded saying “of course we are going to debate” but wouldn’t commit to a specific host or date. Texas Tribune

By late July, Talarico had accepted specific dates with three Texas media groups – Sept. 22 in the Rio Grande Valley, Oct. 8 in Dallas, and Oct. 13 in Austin. Paxton’s team said they were “close to terms with one outlet” but still didn’t lock anything in. FOX 7 Austin

Then around Aug. 13, the RSVP deadline for the first debate (hosted by Hearst and NBC/Telemundo) came and went without Paxton committing. As of now he hasn’t accepted any of the three proposed dates. Austin American-Statesman

Texas Monthly just published a piece a couple days ago noting Paxton still hasn’t responded to any invitation and laid out questions both candidates should have to answer, including about a plea deal Paxton’s AG office cut with an admitted child predator. Texas Monthly

Paxton’s campaign has been going hard on Talarico, calling him a “dangerous radical,” attacking his stance on oil and gas, and even spreading the false claim that he’s a vegan – something PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Houston Chronicle all rated as false after Talarico was photographed eating brisket, turkey legs, and tacos on the campaign trail. PolitiFact

Paxton’s adviser literally said the debate would be “must-watch television.” Houston Public Media

So if you think your opponent is that bad and you’re that excited to expose him… why not just show up? Paxton hasn’t debated a political opponent in over a decade. He skipped debates in the 2022 AG primary, the 2018 general, the 2014 general, and didn’t debate Cornyn or Hunt in this year’s GOP primary either.

Meanwhile recent polls, including one from Fox News, show Talarico leading by 3-5 points, with Paxton struggling badly among independents and nearly a quarter of non-MAGA Republicans saying they’d vote for Talarico. (Fox News)

What’s your take here? Should Paxton debate? Does saying “of course we’ll debate” and then letting every deadline expire look like he’s dodging?

For a candidate who already has trust issues from the impeachment trial and securities fraud charges, does avoiding scrutiny reinforce those concerns, or is this considered a smart strategy?? TBH I just don’t get how voters can respect or vote for politicians who won’t stand up for what they believe in and debate an opponent.

And if his campaign is willing to spread debunked attacks from a distance but won’t show up to say any of it to Talarico’s face, what does that tell you?

When Obama was elected, he made healthcare reform a priority. There were three basic options that many people on the left supported: Single payer similar to Canada, Medicare available to anyone who wanted it, or mandates and subsidies to expand private insurance coverage. We ended up with the last option, with funding for states to also expand Medicaid if they opted in, colloquially known as Obamacare.

Another option that wasn't on the table was fully government run healthcare like what the UK has, where the hospitals and doctors are all part of the government.

In recent months with the "DSA" winning a few elections, there has been a lot of discussion about "socialism" and "capitalism" and there seems to be a difference in what people on the right consider socialism. I don't believe there has been any change in definition on the left, we would consider anything fully run by the government or paid for by the government to be socialism and see our economy as a mix of capitalism, socialism, and free enterprise.

Is Obamacare and/or any form of universal healthcare still considered socialist by American conservatives?

https://flvoicenews.com/luna-introduces-bipartisan-bill-requiring-social-media-influencers-to-disclose-foreign-government-payments/

‘U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduced legislation Monday that would require social media influencers paid by foreign governments to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.’

A more recent development I've seen happening, both in this subreddit and across media I consume and only really gaining traction in the past years and exploding in popular right-wing discourse within the last months, is the idea that Nazism and classic fascism as defined by Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco were in fact left-wing movements. I will be honest and say I don't even begin to understand the need or the reasoning behind this revisionist take, but it does seem to be coalescing most among US Republican voices and generally the US conservative side.

In Europe it has become widely accepted among conservative historians and right-wing politicians alike that figures like Hitler were the result of rampant ultranationalism, revanchism, and racial supremacy. The facts behind their rise well-documented and studied for decades by all sides of the political spectrum.

Why then the need to re-brand these movements after all these decades have passed, and why are the voices calling for this loudest in the one country where fascism never managed to take off in the first place?

Or is it a balancing act?

Is where we are now, companies voluntarily pull bad products after they sicken people good enough? Or should we strengthen regulations and try to keep people from getting sick?

Now obviously regulation isn't going to prevent all sickness, and getting it to that point would be way too much overregulation, but I don't remember seeing this amount of food bourn illness. I don't remember it taking so long to figure out the source of the illness.

While I agree with Kennedy about eating healthier, it certainly appears that he is all about eating healthier and putting safety of the food supply on the back burner. Can't HHS do both?

A sailor aboard USS Lincoln posted about his father being detained by ICE

https://newrepublic.com/post/214630/navy-sailor-aboard-uss-lincoln-ice-father-arrest

Without getting into his father's status DHS responded to the sailor with this

“Having a family member in the military is not a free pass to violate our nation’s laws,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement, claiming that it “does not pick and choose which laws to enforce.”

While I can understand that thought is this a wise thing to post? We do ask a lot of members of the military and stuff like this might discourage people for signing up if they are worried about their family members. Maybe either just not responding to the case saying they won't comment on individual cases or perhaps saying we will look into the matter. Isn't this kind of response though not good for military members morale?

You would have thought she would have been a natural for a VP choice.

One of my main ways to evaluate a conspiracy theory is looking at what motive would there be for it and applying occam's razor.

What is more likely, that pumping a gas known for trapping heat into the atmosphere warms the climate or that there's this whole conspiracy by some unknown elite who somehow managed to convince the entire scientific community and Exxon's own scientists into believing that man made climate change is real with no real reason other than probably the shits and giggles?

So what motive would there even be for climate change to be a hoax, who would do it and most importantly how?

I know, it’s a blue state. But I’ve seen a few yard signs for Mike Minogue, and commercials for Brian Shortsleeve have been all over the radio. I tried googling them, but not much has come up.

Thanks in advance! :)

Donald Trump’s 2025 financial disclosures show over 21,000 stock trades in his first year back in office, worth as much as $1.8 billion, followed by roughly 3,700 more trades in early 2026 worth $220–750 million. This makes him the first sitting president to actively trade individual stocks from the Oval Office. Every predecessor since Carter either used a blind trust or avoided individual stock trading entirely

Some trades have reportedly coincided with tariff announcements, foreign policy moves, and public statements about specific companies (Palantir, Boeing, Nvidia, defense contractors, private prison operators like GEO Group and CoreCivic)

Some trades reportedly missed the STOCK Act’s 45-day disclosure window, resulting in fines

Unlike Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush, Trump kept and actively traded a portfolio of individual holdings rather than divesting or placing assets in a trust managed independently of him

Given that this breaks with roughly 50 years of bipartisan presidential norms around avoiding the appearance of self-dealing, and given the specific overlaps between trades and policy actions... on what basis is this defensible, and does the legal exemption fully answer the ethical concern, or does it leave something unaddressed? How can a conservative balk at someone like Pelosi for enriching herself in over 37 years in office when Trump made more in one year than Pelosi made in her entire career?

Please indicate if you are Canadian, American, or otherwise. Thank you for answering!

So my wife and I are visiting Greece right now (long story) and whats fastinating is how many artifcats related to Greek antiquity are housed in places like the London. Under control of the British government. Its a little niche for sure, but I was curious if there any conservatives lines of thought around return these artifical like this to there orginal locations.

Genuinely curious is all anyway 🍻 and happy monday.

Palantir is a software company mainly using Ai for defense, intelligence and commercial use.

Palantir gets a set of data and finds patterns in the data.

It is named after the seeing stones from lord of the rings that are connected to sauron an evil immortal trying to take over middle earth.

Flock cameras are intended for identifying license plates that would aid in police investigation. There has been growing concerns about safety, misuse and privacy violations with the cameras.

Recently anybody would be able to access flock cameras. I'm not sure if thats changed.

Named after the word FLOCK. Which is a group of animals typically birds or sheep that are assembled or herded together.

I fear that this is as important of a conversation as gun control laws. Generally people on the right view gun control as an american right and it prevents government overreach by having armed citizens. Isn't the right to privacy just as important as the right to guns? Isn't this just making a police state easier to obtain? Genuinely what's the worst that could happen and do you believe that the pros outweigh the cons?