If Democrats win in 2028, especially after a strong showing this year, it could lead to a completely different scenario. With control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, they would have an opportunity to enact a transformational agenda, but might also be tempted to push their priorities without restraint.

Democratic support for packing the Supreme Court with progressive justices has been rising, despite the policy being regarded as constitutional vandalism for nearly a century. Achieving this would require eliminating the Senate filibuster, potentially enabling more party-line legislation than any modern Republican administration has enacted.

Democrats could also seek to admit new states to shift the national balance of power in their favor, push for an end to voter ID requirements in federal elections, and prevent states from implementing meaningful restrictions on abortion, even late in pregnancy. Additionally, they could make statutory and administrative changes to move the country, at least partially, back toward the more permissive border policies of Joe Biden’s presidency.

After I saw a video of Nick Fuentes hating his audience. It got me thinking how easy is it to do what they do, honestly I've had this thought ever since I saw a video of Riley Gaines not knowing what her top held views are.

If anyone is confused the they I'm talking about is the Ben Shapiro's the Candace Owens hell Ima even throw Andrew Tate in the mix I know he's not technically a conservative, but let's be honest. I don't think red pillers I really even voting but if they are, they damn sure aren't voting left lol

Questions are in the title. I’m guessing most people find this unacceptable but perhaps I’ll be surprised.

I genuinely want to understand why so many people still believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. I have tried to wrap my head around the arguments people have made, and I still don't get it. Of course, I can't prove that the election was not fraudulent, but I feel like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which I have not been able to find.

These would be policies that would just be true if you wished them to be true. They would be seen by society as “always true” or “unassailable”.

An example would be, “abortion is totally illegal.” Meaning abortion is and always will be totally illegal.

Which three policies would you wish for and what three policies do you think would make the biggest positive impact on American society?

Edit: “monkey paw” was just the best phrase I could think of. I didn’t want to use “wish” because I wanted broad policy opinions instead of very specific wishes. It’s not a trap, I promise.

Hi everyone,

I just finished Please Stop Helping Us - How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed by Jason Riley.

I couldn’t put it down. So good.

If any of you have read it, I’d love to know what you thought. I would also love for some more book recommendations.

Looking forward to your responses.

Not on the surface a political question, but I am enraged by them and a lot of the solutions I see people propose are much more liberal-coded than conservative, e.g. limits on headlight height, limits on how much a truck can be lifted, lowering headlight brightness maximums retroactively and mandating recalls, forbidding any sort of aftermarket headlight alterations, etc…

Basically all solutions are either tightened manufacturer regulations or stricter laws for car owners.

I’m in favour of any or all of the above, but I imagine conservatives might not be.

So, are you bothered by modern (ie blinding) headlights? If so, do you think there are solutions and what might they be?

BLM, January 6th, anti ICE riots. Biden, Trump. All have done a horrible job with violent rioting

With France letting its own populace burn it to the ground

Does the US need to put some better measures in place? Particularly to avoid preferential treatment depending on the political views of the rioters

They Cannot Build, They Only Destroy

Actual video is only the first 3 and 1/2 minutes, the rest is some sort of ad for the news channel that provided it.

The Trump Admin (read, mainly Donald Trump - I doubt say Rubio agrees) seems to be trying to put the blame for rising diesel prices solely on Ukraine, and Ukraine's attacks on Russian oil. Whether Trump really believes this is the main cause, or is just trying to draw the blame away from the war he helped launch in Iran, is anyone's guess.

To me, though...Ukraine has the right to defend itself. If the United States were being invaded by another country, striking their resources as part of our war strategy, and then being told by another country to stop doing this, only because the incumbent party were worried about domestic prices and their prospects in an upcoming election...we'd be outraged. Imagine a foreign leader telling us that our attacks, even though we were the one who had been invaded, were a disgrace. I doubt Trump would ever call Russian attacks on Ukraine a disgrace.

Constitutional conservatives often emphasize original meaning and enumerated powers, yet the modern regulatory state runs on agencies exercising broad discretionary authority that would have been unrecognizable to the founding generation. The Administrative Procedure Act, Chevron deference, and the sheer volume of rulemaking all seem to operate on a different theory of legitimacy than Article I lawmaking. Is this a tension conservatives should actively resolve, or is there a principled way to accept administrative governance as a necessary adaptation? I am particularly interested in whether anyone sees a path that preserves constitutional fidelity without dismantling institutions that have functioned for decades.

I don't think anybody would have predicted how useful drones could be ten years ago. They're cheap, hard to shoot down and can do a lot of damage. About the only thing they cant do is take territory.

I guess I'm wondering, what do you think warfare will look like in the future?

During gerrymandering of Southern California as a result of prop 50 passing last year the state packed two red districts districts together. The two Republican house reps decided to run against each other and both moved onto the general election by winning the top two slots in the jungle primary. As such we have a slightly bizarre scenario where the only options on the ballot in this district are incumbent republicans.

Between Ken Calvert and Young Kim who would you vote for and why?

Kirill Dmitrev, envoy for Russia, stated that the US and Russia are in talks about building joint data centers. Do you think this is a good idea?

https://www.reuters.com/world/dmitriev-says-russian-wealth-fund-will-work-with-us-payment-diesel-deal-2026-10-16/

Republicans famously are skeptical of the debt, and one of the main accusations of the Biden administration was the unsustainable amount of debt Biden was taken ... yet Trump seems to be much worse? Trump currently average $2.39 trillion per year, while Biden was at $2.11 trillion and Biden had to deal with both the COVID and the Ukraine war, both events out of his power.

How can conservative still honestly talk about the debt and the economy when candidate that is the most popular among Republicans since Reagan is doing such a bad job?

Trump's admin states they will waive most incoming sanctions, previously passed by congress in a rare bipartisanship move spearheaded by the late Lindsay Graham. Initially signed into law by Trump last month. Thoughts?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/17/trump-puts-new-russia-sanctions-passed-by-congress-on-hold-amid-deepening-row-with-ukraine