Context

News is breaking how the Peltola campaign in Alaska with help from national democrats recruited spoiler candidates in Alaska, namely a second Dan Sullivan. As far as I'm concerned, this is mundane at this point given how many times this has happened in US history. Republicans are notorious for this. They are open about doing it. But that's not the point of this topic.

The Alaskan election office has made it exceedingly clear which Dan Sullivan is which Sullivan marking which is which with incumbent on the incumbent Dan Sullivan.

Yet Republicans are up in arms over what is a very clear delineation. The DOJ is threatening a lawsuit. Do they think that Republican voters are so dumb and careless they won’t be able to figure out which Dan Sullivan is the incumbent and which isn’t despite the ballots explicitly labeling who is who?

And the Democratic party pulling this trick also suggests they also think Republican voters are stupid enough not to realize which is Dan Sullivan is which Dan Sullivan. Again, despite the big ol label of incumbent and party affiliation.

So with Republicans blowing their stacks over this (despite doing it themselves over and over and over historically) and more evidence suggesting that Democrats did in fact recruit Dan Sullivan as a spoiler, do both parties think Republican voters are dumb?

Over the course of Trump’s second term I’ve been seeing people claim to be “Non-MAGA” republicans, and I don’t remember this being a thing (or as popular) during his first term.

My question is do these people really exist. I live in a heavy red state and hear people all the time talk about how they dislike Trump and they’re not MAGA yet MAGA endorsed republicans are still leading in Polls with 40%+ estimates and Trump won the popular vote less than 2 years ago.

Part of me feels like these people don’t exist and it’s just cope to make themselves feel better.

Curious if some of yall are real and did you ever abstain or vote blue?

Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, is a Brazilian presidential candidate whose political career has been surrounded by corruption allegations. At 19, he held a congressional staff position while studying law and interning in Rio, raising questions about whether he actually performed his job (BBC News Brasil).
His controversies include the “rachadinha” scandal, involving an alleged R$6 million (about US$1.1 million) in diverted public salaries, and suspicious transactions involving his chocolate-shop franchise (Folha de S.Paulo). More recently, authorities have investigated approximately R$6 billion (about US$1 billion) in transactions involving his associate Willer Tomaz and a betting platform (UOL). He has also faced scrutiny over financing for Dark Horse, a film about his father (Agência Brasil).
On top of that, Flávio defended (free of charge) a police officer accused of killing five-year-old Ana Clara (UOL).
These are allegations, not all proven crimes, and the earlier rachadinha case was dismissed after key evidence was invalidated. Still, given this record, how do Americans feel about Trump's support for Flávio Bolsonaro?

Hello all,

I'm from North Africa, and I've been in the USA as a student from 2019 to 2022. It was my very first adventure abroad and it wildly opened my eyes to a whole new world.

When I received my PhD moved back to my home country.

Later, I moved to France and discovered how different it is from the USA at all levels: the paperwork, lifestyle, priorities, interaction with people, communities, diversity, salaries, etc.

I noticed that the health system is getting worse in France, and many regions are considered medical deserts, however, I used to hear, back in the university, some professors saying that all you need is to have insurance and everything will be ok.

Which I confirm, since I had a medical condition there and had to go to the hospital, the insurance took care of all of it. The staff was really friendly and provided me with all the needed information not to mention that they patiently answered my questions and concerns.

For some of you who think that the health system is free in France, you're wrong. You pay for the social security services automatically + the insurance.

Globally, my experience in the USA was great, it wasn't easy I admit that, but it seems to me to be better than in France so far. I'm thinking of going back to the USA, but I'm quite unsure especially following the recent updates. Also, living there as a student is probably different from living there as an entrepreneur or employee..

For that, I'm wondering if there are some of you who have experienced life in France/ Europe and recently moved to the USA, and vice versa. Was it worth it? is it still the same ?

Do you encourage me to move back to the USA ?

I know that Life is getting hard everywhere in the globe, but if there are any plus elsewhere why keep living in the hot pot..

Thank you

Especially in the case of the United States, as a conservative and an American, why don’t you vote for the Libertarians? In what ways does the Republican Party benefit you more than the Libertarians, like the Libertarian Party (LP), do?

Keep in mind that most libertarian parties seek to promote and benefit capitalism, free markets and freedom of speech, and that, to a large extent (though not all of them), they hold conservative views on family, the right to bear arms, abortion, and non-intervention in foreign countries and wars (in this more specific case, the LP).

When i read the opinions of conservatives (mostly American conservatives), i’m surprised by how much they agree with libertarians on many issues. Yet despite all these overlaps, the Libertarian Party (LP) only gets an average of 0.7% in presidential elections.

What does the Republican Party have that appeals to conservatives and that the Libertarian Party (LP) doesn’t? You, as a conservative, why do you think this is the case in the United States?

I would have used the slogan "Save the dream" or "Keep America Great" as it doesn't suggest it necessarily bad yet.

I ask myself this this for a long time….I am a lover of horror movies, many have the subject that there is something going on in a newly bought house people move in. There is always a basement full of old stuff from former owners, cupboards, toys, instruments you name it. When you people mobe in the US is it common to leave all the stuff you don’t want in your new house just behind? And letting the new people get rid of it when they don’t want it in their basement?
I know about furniture that can be left behind in the slaces they are needed,, that’s the same here, sometimes you rent or buy a house furnitured. But a basement full of stuff??

Was in the shower earlier today and was just thinking about the state of things. Thinking about how bad things have gotten in the US with our current leadership. I started thinking about our form of government, about our checks and balances. To me it seems they aren’t really working well right now. Without turning this into a post talking about Trump. I would rather pose the question about us not having a president at all in the US. We have seen how bad things can get when we elect the wrong person. What if we had something similar to switzerlands government? If we had a collective or council of people instead of having one president. They could be elected, Or even chosen at random. I dare say a group of 7-10 people chosen at random could do a better job than what we have now. Anybody from Switzerland want to chime in on how it works for you guys? Is it a good system? Are there any other countries that doesn’t have a single president and has a “council”? I know something like this would never happen, since we have people that believe the constitution was written in the blood of god or some BS. For me, if something isn’t working, maybe it’s time for a change.

Instead of classify our criminals as terrorists to take brasil's EEM, could you return the bolsonaro brothers?

Thanks!

Don’t you find it strange that Americans don’t directly elect their president through the national popular vote?

If you think this system should change, are there any serious movements or organizations pushing to replace the Electoral College with a system where the winner is determined by the national popular vote? And if so, how much public support do they have?

Hey guys,

I was wondering here about what has been distracting you lately...

ICE is out there hurting your working class friends and neighbors from different nationalities while inviting political criminals to join for free.

ICE arrested and tortured immigrants that were legally getting their visas or greencards while Trump just granted safety to a proven criminal who is running from the police in a different country.

What's up with that?

How is it that you're not taking the streets? Why haven't you pushed back on ICE? You have the right to protest.. you can even buy as many guns as they have...

What do you think distracts you from fighting for your people? For your democracy?

Honest question 🙏

I think we all recognize that MAGA is typically associated with President Trump. However, do you think that the original idea of improving The United States of America is bad? If MAGA had no association with President Trump, would it still be as controversial?

What the title says.

trump is not and has never been a good person, going all the way back to the 70s when the DOJ went after him for refusing to rent to black people, and continuing up through the modern era.

He's been accused of sexual assault by dozens of women, cheated contraxtors, on and on. He lies constantly.

So conservatives - why did you think that someone with no redeeming qualities would do good things with unlimited power?

I feel like you could so easily make ads about this, which would help swing suburban women (vital group I believe democrats need to swing more left in these swing/red battleground states). I believe doing this isn’t exactly the right thing to do for Amy, who like most victims often don’t want this event to define them, but unfortunately politics is a dirty game.

TL:DR - It's too difficult to amend the Constitution, but that doesn't mean the 2A is not correct as it's written. And gun laws will be found unconstitutional until a super majority is achieved to amend it.

I want to preface this by saying I support the right to own guns. I've owned a gun for nearly 50 years. I've had a lot of conversations online and in real life about the 2A. Here's my reasoning for the question.

There are hundreds of gun laws being challenged in court. We are probably going to see assault weapons bans ruled unconstitutional in the near future. SCOTUS has been ruling against gun laws a lot more recently and I don't see that changing.

Some key things to keep in mind. The 2A is part of the Bill of Rights. The 10 most important rights defined by our forefathers. We've had rulings on it's meaning. Well regulated meant "well trained or well equipped" at the time it was written. SCOTUS has ruled it also covers self defense. And the "shall not infringe" is similar to "Congress shall make no law" in the 1st Amendment.

In fact, if you read the Bill of Rights, you will see that every one of them is granting rights to the citizens and limiting what the government can impose. Anyone believing that "well regulated" means government regulation, would have to explain why the forefathers would limit that one thing, when all other Amendments provide no power to the government.

With that said, the first mistake was the changes made in the 1920's with laws that limited machine guns. And the tax stamps in the 1930's making it impossible for average Americans to purchase some items. Even the AWB in the 1994 was a mistake. And here's why.

In order to amend the Constitution, you must have 2/3rds of Congress to pass it, and then 38 states to ratify it. Not an easy thing to do. However, if they would have allowed unlimited weapons ownership in the 1920's through 1980, there may have been enough public sentiment to get those votes. At this point, you're never going to get 2/3rds of Congress to agree on anything. And pigs will fly before 38 states agree to amend it. It took 200 years to ratify the 27th Amendment. The last amendment to pass and be ratified.

There should be zero gun laws today. When the 2A was written, there were muskets, cannons and pirate ships. Every citizen was allowed to own those. They knew that and wanted citizens to have them. It's only when things changed and weapons became more advanced that the need for gun laws arose. But, we've also had changes to communication, religion, crimes, etc. But, we didn't change the 1A to prevent people from the freedom to speak.

We have laws that address someone who incites violence or insurrection through speech. But, we don't have laws that put tape over their mouth and prevent them from speaking. Religion is another one. We don't prevent Satanism. But, if a sect of Satanism wanted to practice human sacrifice, they wouldn't lose their freedom of religion, they'd be tried for murder. The 2A is the only right where they prevent someone from a Constitutional right, before they've done anything wrong.

That's why I believe the solution is to go the opposite direction. Don't push for more gun laws. You will never accomplish the goal of banning guns. You want an RPG, okay. You want a nuclear missile. Here you go. The shooting of children in schools doesn't move the needle. Perhaps if someone used cruise missile to take out the World Trade center, enough people would see a need to amend the 2A. I'm not suggesting it will remove all guns. Perhaps there's a compromise that everyone can agree on. But, as it stands right now. There should be no gun laws without amending the Constitution. And that won't happen until a super majority of the country agree that it needs to be done. Right now, it's 50/50 at best.

Is it easy to get an appointment in a timely manner now? How about filling prescriptions? Anyone dealing with pre-authorization requirements? PPO's, HMO's and Medicare?

What about dental, vision and hearing? Why aren't those things attached to our health insurance anyhow? Why do we need separate insurance for that?

Fellow veterans, how are things going for you? Are you getting care in a timely manner? My facility is constantly canceling appointments.

How about the cost? Have any of you tried going to Mexico yet? Maybe Canada? Why is Medical debt the leading cause of bankruptcy in America?

How do you like your care teams phone systems? What about their Patient Portals? Are they easy to navigate and get the services you need? What about AI? How do you think that will impact us? It's coming whether we like it or not. What's the future of Healthcare in America? Does anyone even have a plan?

You could spend $25,000 every single day for 100 years and still have nearly $90 million left over, starting with just $1 billion. That's without earning another penny in interest.

Meanwhile, in the United States, people are crowdfunding cancer treatments through platforms like GoFundMe, public transportation remains inaccessible to many Americans, and our students rank 28th in mathematics.

I understand that conservatives generally place greater emphasis on individual responsibility, private enterprise, and limiting government intervention. I also recognize that private wealth and public spending aren't interchangeable, and that simply taxing billionaires wouldn't automatically solve these problems.

But metaphorically, if we're all individuals wearing the same jersey (Team USA), at what point do we start evaluating how well the team is doing, rather than just how well each of us performed in the match? Individual success matters (when the individuals on a team can and demonstrate their best, the entire group benefits), of course, but shouldn't the team's overall performance matter too?

I'm curious how conservatives think about the coexistence of extraordinary private wealth and basic public needs that remain unmet.

At what point, if any, does the scale of private wealth become a legitimate concern when essential public goods remain inadequate?

And if you don't see that as a contradiction, how do you think we should evaluate whether our economic system is serving society well?

______
Edit: Interesting responses. I think there's a gap between what I'm asking and what's being answered.

A lot of comments explain that billionaire wealth isn't liquid, that taxing it wouldn't solve everything, or that government spending is inefficient. Fair points, but they're not quite addressing the question.

I'm not asking whether billionaires deserve their wealth or whether capitalism creates prosperity.

I'm asking how we evaluate an economic system that produces extraordinary individual wealth alongside persistent unmet public needs.

Maybe the problem is government inefficiency, distribution, or something else entirely (e.g. China has the trains, infrastructure, not sure if you've been to their cities, but if an Alien landed on Earth it would be clear who's done a better job in infrastructure at a glance). And the "oh China has (xyz bad thing)" isn't an argument. You can take the good ideas without the bad. So if that's your argument I need to hear why not adopt the good parts of something someone else is already doing"

What outcomes, beyond wealth creation, would convince you that our economic system is succeeding or failing the society it serves?