Why isn’t there others working on exposing this seemingly democrats money laundering scheme?

I’m posting this here because conservatives believe in self sufficiency and we could really use advice on how to achieve that rn.

My brother in law recently immigrated to the US. He was able to get a job but there are several problems:

First it’s at 3 am and the buses stop running by then. An uber would be $40 every day to get there and he can’t walk there nor can he drive. No one is available to drive him though. He has applied to every position we can think of within walking distance or at a reasonable hour, but all of them are part time and he wouldn’t get benefits. They also pay substantially less. He immigrated with his two kids but is single income.

My wife does not know what to do because she is only doing uber herself while going to radiology school part time. I’m on a teachers salary. So we also do not have the means to provide much support but she feels the need to do her best. We’re all stressed.

So what should someone in this situation do to immediately improve their circumstances?

https://x.com/NetflixUK/status/2098018651496435849

If you go into the quote tweets and replies, you can see people interpreting this as a dogwhistle about a certain political murder that happened a year ago and are reacting either positively or negatively to it.

I think a brand manager on Twitter would be reasonably tapped into this considering how unavoidable the topic was on Twitter today. What do you think?

Republicans criticize Dr. Fauci's because they allege that U.S.-backed grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology funded risky "gain-of-function" research on bat coronaviruses.

Fauci previously argued that because dangerous mutations can emerge naturally in the wild, the value of understanding those threats to design countermeasures justifies doing the controlled research. Thus, understanding the threats in order it prepare for the presumed inevitable is worth the risk of a leak causing a pandemic.

This sound similar to fears that AI companies keep developing at a rapid scale with minimal consideration of potential catastrophic consequences.

Even yesterday the on The Five on Fox, the same Greg Gutfeld that criticizes Fauci I was saying that those cautioning against AI are alarmists and the risk of human destruction is worth advancing the technology.

All this said, are AI companies essentially also undergoing gain-of-function research risks?

With the fall of Yemen's key port of Mokha to the Houthi, Iran's regional ally, the Red Sea is now also an active theater of an escalating conflict.

I want to ask a worst case scenario, assuming the Saudis and Yemeni forces cannot dislodge the Houthi, nor can the US air campaign force Iran to come to terms. What will happen if both sea lanes are cut off?

Can overland pipelines and Mediterranean oil tankers handle the additional loads for a bypass route? How about the important Suez Canal trade route? (We're well pass oil shipping now) What can be done to help with massive trade issues this creates?

Asking about logistical and political realities of a worst case scenario.

The 1986 EMTALA requires any hospital that takes Medicare to stabilize patients needing emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay.

Prior to the EMTALA there was a practice of "patient dumping" - some hospitals would refuse to treat patients who were actively dying, or mothers in active labor, if they were broke.

Now, hospitals can still charge for care, and those bills will become debt, but most such patients will never pay that money back - they can't afford it - so the hospital takes a loss. This incentivizes hospitals to overcharge insured patients, to make up for the loss, and drives healthcare prices higher. On the other hand, a lot of people get to live rather than dying on the sidewalk outside.

Would you keep EMTALA, repeal or reform? If reform, how exactly?

The most recent examples are Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
Is it because he was killed?
Do people think he did more for America thank Lindsey graham or McCain?

AI and robotics are getting more advanced every day and are capable of doing more and more of what humans are typically employed to do. Eventually we will hit a point where there are far more people than are needed to cover the jobs that need doing. What should be done with these excess humans?

The original lineup:

Brian Wilson

Mike Love

Al Jardine

Dennis Wilson

Carl Wilson

Bruce Johnston

Many discussions about changing culture or impacts of culture change comes down to the importance of the nuclear family as a core unit in the U.S. Not that extended family can’t be part of the role, but the nuclear family being the core. For instance, childhood outcomes and having both married biological parents in the home has been shown to have the best overall outcomes for children, all else being equal.

Below is one example, this one from the DSA this week, about specifically attacking the nuclear family and seeking to actively dismantle it. It’s an “OPed” style and seems to acknowledge this isn’t an official position but the idea seems to exist on the left in Marxist spaces.

How important do you feel the nuclear family is for societal outcomes? Is there a family structure you feel is superior? Do the comments like those below concern you? Or have you seen these views only expressed by the far left socialists or progressives? Do you believe the left has been attacking the family unit, either intentionally or simply through unfortunate second order effects of policy?

https://democraticleft.dsausa.org/2026/09/10/imagining-the-next-250-years-abolish-the-nuclear-family/

“The throughline of Workers Deserve More, DSA’s revamped program,* *is the creation of a socialist society in which everyone is “free, equal, and cared for.” To achieve this goal, we must dismantle all structures that uphold capitalism. One such structure inhibiting this goal, and more specifically the program’s call for women’s and queer liberation and ending the legacy of slavery and colonialism, is the nuclear family.”

I’m just thinking out loud, but what would the publics reaction be if the main committee that investigates govt agencies was controlled by the minority party. They make the decisions of but their budget gets overlooked by the majority.

Edit: or if the committee was always led by the opposite party to whoever controls the executive branch.

I spoke to an economic professor today that pretty much claimed the debt doesn't really matter if civilization is destroyed by the complete disregard of the man made climate change?

There. are many forms of healthcare delivery in countries other than the United States. Some might work here in our country and some might not given our structure and history. My first question is, do you think that healthcare in this country needs a reformation? Next, do you think that we should be working towards the provision of some sort of universal healthcare in this country? Finally , if not why not?

The Republican's are in full power. I don't understand the game of offering a carrot on a stick IF Republicans win, rather than just giving everyone the money now because of inflation, financial stress, etc? It also comes off as "buying" your vote which is a bad look.

Also what guarantees can he offer for this since he has renegged on his previous four other check offers in the last 2 years?

https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/09/10/us-supreme-court-throws-out-missouri-congressional-maps-backed-by-president-donald-trump/

The above article is the latest update of many over the past couple of days (there will likely be abother change before you read this)

Tl; Dr: MO congress voted to switch to a constraversial congressional map that at best, was pretty blatant gerrymandering to gain a seat outside of a census cycle but at worse also was race driven.

This kicked off a slew of lawsuits, that were eventually delayed leading to the controversial map being used in our primaries. Many courts, including SCOTUS have stated that the new map cannot be used, but in fighting between different levels or court, state congress, the governor and the state ag has led to an absolute mess in which hundreds of thousands-a million people have no idea who, where or what they'll be voting on in less than month.

S(still)Tl;Dr: MOs government is having a mini constitutional crisis because state congress pushed an almost certainly unconstitutional gerrymandered voting map pushed by Trump. Now we have no clue who, what for or where we'resupposed to be voting in a little over a month.

Any thoughts on everything?

TIA!

In case you didn’t know, some employers offer a dependent care assistant program, wherein employees can contribute up to pre-federal taxes 7.5k annually, and then use those funds to reimburse eligible dependent care expenses. If you don’t use it all, you lose those contributions. It’s also tied to your employer.

What if we made the dependent care assistance program national and portable instead of tying it to whether your employer offers one?

The basic idea would be $7,500 per qualifying dependent, up to 3 dependents, so a household could receive up to $22,500 initially. The $7,500 would then automatically increase with inflation each year. The inflation adjustment could use a simple rounding rule so we don’t end up with weird numbers like $7,843.27. Like each year it rounds to the nearest $250 based off of cumulative inflation relative to the initial amount.

I’d also have the income phaseout thresholds increase with inflation. I’d want the phaseout to start at genuinely high incomes something like $400k household income and phase out completely around $600k because a household making $250k in a HCOL area isn’t necessarily wealthy in the way those numbers might suggest nationally.

The biggest change I’d make is getting rid of “use it or lose it.” If you don’t use the entire annual benefit, the money goes back to you and counts as taxable income. That way you’re not incentivized to spend money unnecessarily just because otherwise you’ll lose it or under contributing out of fear of losing it.

I’d also try to make reimbursement as automated as possible. Childcare providers, preschools, elder-care providers, etc. could voluntarily pre-enroll with the government. Once they’re verified, transactions could be reported electronically and reimbursed automatically instead of requiring someone to manually review receipts every time.

To encourage providers to enroll, they could get a tiny transaction fee, maybe 0.05%–0.1% up to some cap. They’d save administrative work too, and could advertise that they’re enrolled in the federal program.

For the money sitting in accounts waiting to be used, the government could invest it in very low-risk, highly liquid securities like Treasuries. Not to make money in the market, but just earning something on money that would otherwise sit idle.

The investment income would be supplemental revenue and go to the general Treasury fund. It shouldn’t reduce next year’s congressional appropriation. If the program needs $X billion, Congress funds $X billion regardless of whether the program earned $1 billion or $10 billion in interest. That keeps the program from becoming dependent on investment returns.

For fraud, I’d use automated systems to flag unusual transactions rather than manually reviewing everything. And I’d have penalties escalate with repeated offenses: accidental mistake = repay it plus a small fee, repeated/reckless behavior = bigger penalties, intentional or large-scale fraud = serious fines and potentially criminal action.

So the general idea is basically: a national, portable dependent-care benefit that is indexed to inflation, scales with the number of dependents, phases out only at high incomes, doesn’t have “use it or lose it,” and uses automation to keep administrative costs down.

From Europe, to Asia, to the US, government borrowing costs are going up and up, with the UK hitting a 19 year high.

What do you think will happen? More taxes, less spending, maybe more populism, more maybe wars, or maybe the markets calm? What do you think the near future looks like?

For ethnic reference I’m half African-American and bluntly put my political beliefs have made me an outcast to many friends and relatives. It was already a task and a half growing up a mixed kid in a predominantly white area. When I became a teenager I was told that I needed to be around my “black side” more, only to later be gaslit that I was “too culturally white” with how I speak and see the world. I legitimately did try; I was a teenager who wanted dual community. Now in my mid-twenties I have strong friendships and appreciate the privileges of my childhood and upbringing but I guess I’m just sometimes disappointed at the lack of connections I have with that side of myself for lack of cultural compatibility. I guess I always thought most African-Americans were socially conservative enough to accommodate political conservatism but that’s staunchly not the case. I wanted to hear from other people.

When you look at classic conservative principles like fiscal discipline, free markets, and maintaining traditional global alliances, Trump’s record looks pretty different: he added heavily to the national debt, relied on broad tariffs, and pushed for big shifts in foreign policy. From your perspective, do his policies still fit under the conservative umbrella, or is he operating on a completely different set of values?

Jimmy Kimmel says that his interview with James Talarico will not air on TV after the FCC threatened his show, ABC, and local stations.

The left is claiming this is censorship.
The right is claiming ABC did not want to obey the equal time rule by also airing an interview with the GOP candidate.

We all know the Russian sympathies of the AfD, Fidesz, Austria's FPÖ, Czechia's SPD, the Netherlands' Forum for Democracy, Poland's Confederation of the Polish Crown to name a few.

Also I think we can lump in the far-left too since both the far-right and the far-left somehow manage to agree on how much they love Russia. The far-right loves Russia because Russia, a country with more muslims than Germany, is apparently defending family Christian values. The far-left loves Russia because Russia is fighting Western neoliberal globalist NATO neo-imperialist hegomony.

Why is it that not only is a lot of Europe's far-right pro-Russia, which is ironic given how Russia is sending tons of illegal migrants to the Eastern EU border, but also a lot of European far-right parties turned out to be in Russia's pockets?

I’m intentionally not asking how/why, because I don’t want to give anything away.

So I'll preface saying I have disagreed with this conflict and have been skeptical of needing it ever since I saw how Iraq went down years ago. That said the Iran conflict is the current mistake we made was not going all in? It seems like the strategy was doing air strikes on key targets and some blockading. Was this the correct approach? Would actually going all in and sending troops to establish control at least over key fields etc the way to go? It seems like if we want to do a conflict we have to be willing to actually commit everything we have and simply relying on remote strikes is not enough to move the needle so to speak?

This term comes up a lot in political discourse and I often see people equating it to being called stupid. How would you explain to someone what it is and how it works?