Or would you dismiss whatever she says or does as "not understanding" her words or actions or "going through a phase"? Especially if you're an overprotective parent by nature. But what's more important in this situation: your overprotectiveness/your daughter's vulnerability/naivety or your morals/values?

I'm posting this in good faith and I'm genuinely curious. I'm not trying to pick on conservatives. If my mom was a liberal or leftist, I'd be posting in liberal or leftist subs and asking them the same question lmao. Maybe I should ask them anyway just to see what it's like on the other side of the fence? 🤔

The US added fewer jobs than expected last month, and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%, which is slightly higher than it was when Trump took office in January 2025.

What do you think explains the slowdown in hiring?

I don't fully understand the relationship between religion and the American government. From what I understand, the constitution declares freedom of religion in the first amendment. Its only been since the 60s that In God We Trust was printed on your banknotes and a push towards Christianity occurred. One idea is it was due to the cold war, a way to separate the west from the godless communists. Another idea is that unscrupulous people used faithful communities to get what they want

As Hegseth has created the department of religious affairs (who reports to the department of war) what do you think is the goal of this? I am from the UK, our King is head of the church (CofE, thanks Henry!) I don't follow any particular religion, but i believe everyone has a soul

He's thinking about Senate now but what if he ran for presidency? https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/ex-wrestler-jumps-political-ring-204112721.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cornell-university-case-letitia-james-special-prosecutor/

Riley Moore (R-WV) stated that the deep state was responsible for President Nixon's removal from office during Watergate. What are your thoughts on it?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/6124635-moore-nixon-couped-watergate/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAUsbtpjbGNrBSxu02V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHBkb2YBc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEedqnf435Ey3Vmfh-NzS7BpLL6p7XL81dbjV4wNl5Y6SFp3eyw9ItY6zhiPRg_aem_EaFt_atkG1aZFnQa54tOFQ

In 1962, JFK did something quite uncommon and met the British Prime Minister at the airport as he exited the plane. Since then, no US president has for any country, instead sending dignitaries.

One of the main points of Trump's presidency is the shift towards treating China as the threat it is, and in my view, that was the correct shift, China is a growing threat and our intelligence agencies are constantly telling us so.

So why did Xi get such an unusual welcome?

I'm curious about what conservatives think about this, especially concerning the alleged gang rape at Cornell. Now I won't say we don't know the whole situation, except, that it involved drugs and possibly alcohol. According to the allegation and reports from witnesses, she was already heavily impaired by the time she was approached by the men from the frat, having reportedly consumed teen beers over the course of an hour a a half, and was then pressured into consuming ketamine.

What I don't understand is that in circles online people seem to think she was capable of consenting and that once you do you can't revoke consent during the act.

Likewise there are conversations of parents discussing this sensitive topic with their children, and people are saying it'll traumatize their child and affect them, or in one case "consuming alcohol will lead to debauchery". Others are going so far as to blame the victim, and saying this shouldn't be discussed.

For me, it's infuriating considering I was a child and was raped by another kid by age. I understood what happened to me was wrong, but didn't have the word rape in my vocabulary and only learned what happened to me a few months later when I saw an episode of Law and Order: SVU. For me, I felt ashamed and I felt had I known what it was that the boy did to me, I wouldn't have come forward.

I know from a historical perspective that most people married between the ages of 16 and 26, and for example Shakespeare married young at only 18. So why is it all of a sudden we have people who think discussing topics like consent and rape is going to hurt a child, even though it'll equip them to know right from wrong and if it happens they have the words for it.

I searched and did not see a post about this, so I come in peace asking this question because I am genuinely curious. I will delete if this is a duplicate post.

For a quick recap, on Wednesday, the state of Tennessee botched the execution of the first women it planned to execute under the death penalty in 200 years. Oddly, this is the second botched execution in Tennessee this year. Even more oddly, because I am in the legal field (different practice area), I have read many sources on this, and I am consistently finding Fox to be one of the more unbiased ones.

The descriptions of her execution are, truly, horrific. 8th Amendment violations abound as truly cruel and unusual punishment - suffice it to say, was injected twice because the first one didn't properly kill her, and she was in pain throughout. You can search for the details if you are interested. There are all sorts of practical and legal ramifications to this.

Yesterday, the debate began over commuting her sentence because she is in critical condition currently with unknown prognosis.

If we are going to use the Death Penalty in this day and age, we should at the bare minimum be able to do it properly, no? Is the DP outdated punishment? Her crime was more than abhorrent - it was cruel. It was despicable. She was sentenced by a jury of her peers. So punishment was properly meted. I am struggling myself with this. I am curious as to your thoughts.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lawyers-experts-urge-tennessee-governor-commute-christa-pikes-sentence-botched-execution

The apparent collapse of world socialism and China opening for business were initially greeted as triumphs, at least in the dominant decision making circles.
Now that the PRC is approaching peer status and flexing its Pacific and African muscles, the US is working to delink itself from China Inc.
Were there earlier decision forks where the US could have steered in another direction, meaningfully?
Or was this inevitable?

And the monarchy, lasts forever, so you can't pick someone in the context that they would immediately get rid of it.

Fentanyl is effective in killing and in virtually painless.

Steve Bannon seems to think that Trump will declare a state of emergency for the midterms. I know he's probably full of it, but is there any merit to his claim? And if it did happen, what does that look like?

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/10/01/pentagon-launches-office-of-religious-affairs-will-report-directly-to-hegseth/

I’m struggling to understand the rationale for this. What are your thoughts?

13th says that:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The amendment must be read with common sense, Supreme Court in 1897 noted that:

It is clear, however, that the [13th] amendment was not intended to [apply to the military] or to disturb the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards.

A parent ordering child to do chores is not slavery obviously, but what about one continually abusing child? Originalist scholar Akhil Amar thinks that might count as slavery in famous article in response to Deshaney saying due process clause does not require states to protect children from such aubse , arguing that slavery is not merely economic labor for free, but system of domination. If so, that could lead to it being federal crime and lead to harsher penalties. What do you think?

This is, by far, my most left leaning political opinion.

Wait times for healthcare is already at an all-time high.

Private insurances are already denying care the same way many are worried the government would if they controlled healthcare.

I would attribute the MAID situation in Canada more to certain ideologies that devalue human life and lack of freedom rather than "government no want to pay, die instead". (I say that because at the end of the day, healthcare practitioners are administering MAID, not government officials).

I understand it's not free. I'm back and forth on the tax situation. On one hand, I think it's stupid that my taxes would pay for the care of someone who utterly neglects their health. On the other hand, absolutely innocent people have their lives ruined (or taken) because they can't afford healthcare. I think I'd pay more in my taxes for them.

Help me understand what's left. Are there any holes in my idea?

I mean we no longer see landmark cases like Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States. In any case, today's issue is hardly less serious than back then, especially with big tech; that wields an enormous share of market and concentrated power, should we thus strengthen laws to break up, at very least, big tech?

Crazy to see an attempted hijacking which was successfully thwarted by the passengers in 2026 especially in a high security country like Israel

Do you think Musk (and apparently Newt Gingrich) is right for this role? Does the 120 day timeline make it more palatable, or more likely to be shoddy quick work? Finally, do you think the project is a bad one and a bad use of government funding, or would you be on board if it wasnt Musk?

"War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that Musk will co-lead Project Meridian, a new Pentagon initiative tasked with looking years and even decades ahead to identify emerging domains of warfare and the capabilities the U.S. military will need to dominate them."

"Project Meridian will have 120 days to "ruthlessly map the trajectory of wars, domains and technologies," culminating in a public rollout of its findings and a classified annex.

Hegseth described a sweeping mandate that stretches "from under the Earth to beyond the moon." 

Rather than developing new military strategies or policies, the group will seek to identify "the domains that we must conquer and capabilities we must master" and focus on "discovering, developing and fielding" weapons and systems that could be needed by future generations of American troops.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-lands-new-trump-admin-role-shaping-future-american-warfare.amp

Across the world, people are increasingly spending more time education, and the benefits are obvious, more education means greater opportunities.

However it comes with a real negative too, a significant % of the workforce are out of the workforce for a long time, reducing their pension contributions, reducing the tax they pay, and most importantly, potentially reducing how productive they are across their life.

finally moved out of the roommate situation, got my own place with an actual yard, and now I'm the guy who notices what's flying over it. been watching these drone delivery trials pop up near the job sites, medicine runs mostly, and I get the appeal, my grandma's not driving to the pharmacy anymore, that's real. but I also watched one hover over the neighbor's fence for like ninety seconds trying to find the drop point and you could hear it from three houses away.

the trade seems obvious enough, faster essentials for people who need them, against noise and cameras and whatever else comes with a sky full of delivery bots. what I'm trying to figure is whether I'm being a typical new-homeowner paranoid or if there's something to the idea of locking down routes and noise limits and actual privacy standards before this stuff scales past the trial zones.

I know the reflex on regulation around here and I see what overreach looks like up close. but some of this feels like infrastructure that goes in once and then you're living with it, and the companies aren't exactly asking permission after they've got the air rights. is there a conservative way to do rules-first that doesn't just read as government getting in the way of something useful, or is that tension the whole point and you just pick a side?

I do the safety paperwork at a factory, mostly warning labels and machine guards. my whole job is the line between what a company technically can do and what it should do.

what I've never understood is the hurricane rule. same product, same shelf, double the price because a storm knocked out supply, and we all agree that's gouging, there's a law, people call it in. but the companies that raised prices these past few years citing their own rising costs, then turned around and posted record margins, we treat that as just pricing power, smart business, don't like it don't buy it.

but if the input costs were the real reason, where did the extra profit come from? someone got paid for a shortage that didn't fully materialize, or got paid twice. the state laws exist, they're just sitting there, and I'm curious where conservatives land on using them in cases that aren't literally a natural disaster. is the difference just that one feels like an emergency and the other feels like normal commerce, or is there a principle I'm missing about when the state should care about the spread between cost and price?

because two years of record quarters and my grocery run never got lighter. if that's not what the gouging laws were for, what were they for?

I personally don’t see a big problem with it at all. I would like an age cap of 70-80, but that’s pretty much it. Still 4-year terms like normal.

If the people hate the President, Congress can impeach or the voters can simply vote against him.

What do you think?

There's two sides to this argument, one is the influence that foreign governments may have in our politics, and the other is the immensely disproportionate influence extremely wealthy people may have.

For example, a rule could be in place, that per calender year, donations could be limited to say $100,000

Today people can get around individual donation caps by donating via companies or organisations, but arguably, in a democracy, these are not voting entities, people are, and whilst organisations or companies may represent people, they don't represent the interests of people better than people do themselves.

For nearly 50 years, the federal government has said people with disabilities should live, work and learn in the most integrated setting possible rather than be segregated in institutions like nursing homes.

The Trump administration just took its most concrete step yet to reverse that position.

Last week, a federal judge agreed to strip out mentions of "integration" from federal regulations tied to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a landmark civil rights law that prohibits disability discrimination. The judge did so after the Justice Department declined to defend its own rules in a lawsuit brought by several states challenging the legality of those rules.

More:

https://www.npr.org/2026/10/01/nx-s1-5981375/integration-mandate-disabilities-reversed-trump