The case for a legal check on a president is three sentences.

One: a rule that cannot be enforced is just a preference. Two: this administration answers unfavorable rulings and watchdog findings with make us, and the official remedy is waiting for the next election. Three: therefore, for the most powerful office in the country, the law is currently a suggestion. If any of those sentences is wrong, show me which.

The Constitution's whole theory is that the president takes care that the laws are faithfully executed. Trump ignoring rulings he dislikes is the exact failure impeachment exists for. If impeachment is too heavy and the courts too slow, then the honest position is that the president is above the law, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

I understand the fear that any new lever gets weaponized when the parties flip. Good, then build it with due process, apply it to every president equally, sunset it if abused. But that argues the lever might be misused, not that a president who says make us to a court is fine. Those are different arguments, and only one is on the table.

What check would you actually trust?

Had a conversation with someone on the sub that claims voting is not a right. Is this a common stance?

Why do we have numerous amendments that address this non-right?

I’m a conservative, but I’ve noticed that other conservatives are very confident about the Republicans chances in the election, even though things look horrible for them.

If I say this in conservative circles online, I’m called a communist or a liberal but I’m just being real. The polls were pretty spot on in 2024 so I don’t see why they wouldn’t be accurate now.

President Trump rose to power on the Right primarily because he voiced the concerns of the American Right in a way no politico had before. So he earned a lot of faith for his strong communication with the Right.

Additionally, that was backed up in large part, because of his success as a business icon and having written the book "The Art of the Deal".

Throughout his time as President many supporters have pointed to "The Art of the Deal" as a way of saying. He's negotiating, he is one of the very best at it. Let him do his thing and he is going to negotiate better outcomes for America.

What are the best examples of results achieved by President Trump being a great negotiator?

During the monologue he made a joke about women dressing “like whores” at the gym.

I didn’t think the joke was all that funny, mostly because I’ve seen plenty of others joking on women for wearing extremely revealing gym clothes here on Reddit and on other platforms, and it felt like already explored territory. But I did think the response was very interesting.

If you had made me guess which joke people were upset about after watching it without that foreknowledge, I probably wouldn’t have even been able to tell you that’s the thing they got angry over. Seemed fairly tame to me, honestly in terms of how offensive or edgy comedy can get. Made me wonder if somebody like Daniel Tosh would even make it as a comedian today.

So what are your thoughts? Offensive? Not offensive? Bad joke? Average joke? Funny joke?

For the last decade rural hospitals have been closing leaving many communities without access to nearby medical care. That trend has accelerated with the passage of the one big beautiful bill. Today, 1 in 5 rural hospitals are in danger of closing. Even if they haven't closed, many are reducing services like maternity wards leaving patients with the burden to travel far distances for care.

Considering the areas affected are often deep red, this seems like something the Republican Party should be working on. Why do you think there is a lack of action?

In your day to day, do you have political discussions with people who largely share your politics?

I ask because I don’t, and I’ve realized that a lot of my “why do conservatives believe/say/do ______?” questions also get asked a lot by conservatives, but with the framing “why do liberals believe/say/do _______?” about the same things.

My social circles mostly contain people who share my politics, and so the few political discussions I have in real life are with long time conservative friends whose opinions I respect. About conversing with the people in my life who share my politics, I think why? We have the same news sources, I’m not going to learn anything from them, let’s just talk about other stuff.

Online, I’ve been banned from at least two socialist subreddits (despite being a social democrat/democratic socialist myself) so I have some experience with a small few of the kinds of crazy leftists I see conservatives ask about.

But by and large my political interactions are with people who disagree with me, so I think I probably have more than a few blind spots re: conservatives’ interactions with liberals.

So, do you engage in political discussions with people who vote like you? Or do you also mainly do it with people who differ from you? Or is it a mix?

Section 504 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance, like hospitals, schools, and so forth, while ADA does same even more broadly. Both have had major impact on American society, infrastructure and labor law, do you think they are good laws?

I was in CDMX for a few weeks and found the most interesting thing. the city has set up free Wi-Fi that was pretty reliable (allowed me to work), free, and eliminated the need for most people to even have a Phone Plan.

With Over 35,550 free access points they hold the World Record for the most free public hotspots globally.

They are on street poles, at train stations, public/community centers... basically everywhere.

anyway - This seems like a pretty darn good use of public infrastructure funds to me... but whatta yall think?

IF not, what do you think is a good use of infrastructure funds?

He is campaigning in Texas, Ohio, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska and even Montana. Why not Michigan, Maine, Minnesota and Georgia?

If the polls are unreliable and lean left like many conservatives say, why is Trump spending so much time campaigning in red states?

The new press secretary seems to have lied about being a lawyer, saying she passed the bar exam in China, which isn’t a thing.

https://apnews.com/article/katie-zacharia-lawyer-bar-trump-press-secretary-b3b7b9747856bcd11df094f331195119

Her first press conference was a bit of a train wreck, so this could be a blessing in disguise for Trump. If she is indeed lying, do you find that to be disqualifying in someone whose job it is to relay information to the public?

Here's the situation. Zelensky's presidential term officially expired on May 20, 2024. Ukraine hasn't held elections since, citing martial law. Trump has now publicly called for elections, saying Zelensky "could have ended the conflict many times" and "should hold elections" ( https://www.afp.com/pt/node/3846598 )

Zelensky is refusing. He told Piers Morgan "no, of course" when asked if he'd resign, calling it "his responsibility" ( https://www.kyivpost.com/post/87150 )

Street protests broke out in July after Zelensky fired Defense Minister Fedorov, a popular reformer. Protesters demanded accountability, power checks, and elections. Fedorov himself called for wartime elections and accused the government of corruption ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdew8n9erlwo )

Trump called for elections. Do conservatives back him on this?

The corruption allegations don't directly name Zelensky, but they're close to him and his inner circle. Is that enough to justify calls for new leadership?

We make a ton of food. Most of it is perishable. Current grain stocks give us about a year's reserve - most everything else spoils in weeks. Livestock can be kept alive with grain for a few more years, as long as there's grain or hay to feed them, but we only have a year's supply.

Crop failures used to kill masses and wipe out entire civilizations. Modern agriculture techniques reduce that risk, and the ability to import food decorrelates the crop failures that do happen, but global famine can still occur:

Nuclear winter would make agriculture impossible for at least 2-3 years. Extreme weather events could strike several regions at once. Global trade could break down.

We could protect our nation by stockpiling extra grain, and ideally MREs, in caches around the country. Why don't we? Should we?

A lot of states passed major pension overhauls around 2010-2015, raising retirement ages, shifting to defined contribution for new hires, COLA adjustments. I worked in local government at the time and remember the heated union meetings and the promises that these fixes would stabilize systems without crushing current retirees.

For conservatives who were involved in or supported those reforms, what's your assessment a decade out? Did the projected savings materialize? Did the political blowback match expectations? I'm particularly curious whether you think the tradeoffs were worth it or if the long-term math still looks shaky despite the cuts.

Several countries, such as France, have banned the hijab in schools. Do you support or oppose those bans?

Pre-Trump I saw plenty of US conservatives arguing that military aid to Ukraine was great because it meant you could get real field data on how weapons perform against a near-peer enemy, plus drain the resources of a long-time enemy, all while not endangering any US personnel.

Iran has obviously held up against both the military and economic bombardment for far longer than the administration expected them too. Russia is undoubtedly helping them, but only to the limited extent they can while also struggling with their own war. So is it possible the resilience of Iran is because China is quietly supplying whatever they need to keep going, and thus keep draining the US military resources?

I'm considering running for the US House of Representatives seat for my district against an established notorious incumbent in the primaries (pretty safe red district, primaries are likely the main battle). Are there any lessons I can take from AOC's first campaign where she upset an incumbent with almost asymmetrical-warfare-like tactics? Something she did that could be translated into a Conservative approach?

I've seen lots of threads here discussing various aspects of MAGA within the Conservative party, and I've seen more and more moderates distancing themselves from MAGA, and many more yet getting outright tired of what it's doing to their party. But... how do conservatives that are tired of the direction of their party because of MAGA propose rescuing the conservative party from itself? It seems that such a large percentage of red voters now treat politics like such a team sport that even the more thought of voting for an alternative seems outright revolting to them.

I see a lot of comments along the lines of "I don't like Trump, I don't like what he's doing, I think tariffs are dumb since they're just another tax on Americans, and I don't like him destroying alliances with our allies" etc etc etc, but then often in the same comment, or in other comments in another thread, these same people say "But be damned If I'd ever not vote red!" in their next breath.

What is the solution? Not voting? Strategic voting at the state level that forces out the MAGA aspect in favour of more level-headed moderates, if those people even exist anymore since it seems like most are afraid to speak out for fear of MAGA (be it Trump, or what's left of MAGA after he leaves) turning on them?

What is the path out for those who are tired of all the nonsense?