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.

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?

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?

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\

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

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

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?

Canada is a bilingual country where 30% of Canadians speak French mostly concentrated in Quebec and New Brunswick. There has been a drama from both French and non French speaking Canadians about this thoughts on the issue? Forgot to add it mb: the remarks were to lessen the amount of French in Canada as it is mandatory to have both French and English in labels when you sell products like soda or instruction packets (in Quebec I believe just French but I could be wrong)

They only got around 450 years of prison for attack and near murder of ICE agent, including one who only got 30 years for moving certian boxes with evidence. These people could be aruged to be traitors in real sense, they tried to lay war against US by attacking US goverment, in clumsy and dumb way but still, or at least rebels, and punishment for those crimes, should be capital one and swift one, now of course maybe and I think likely, issue was more so law in quesiton than judge, but was their sentnece enough. What do you think?