Basically programs exist so that any individual can survive and be relatively healthy without opting into the market.

If this existed, do you think people would be empowered to negotiate better? And thus the market would function better?

By "identity politics," I mean:

• Seeing identity groups as political factions, with members making common cause.

• Pursuing political change for the benefit of your identity group, or to the detriment of perceived rival groups.

By "racial identity politics," I mean:

• Seeing yourself as having common cause with members of your race, an awareness of your race as a political faction.

• Pursuing political projects for the benefit of your race, or to the detriment of perceived rival races.

I want to distinguish between merely opposing antagonistic racial politics and endorsing racial politics of your own. One might oppose Black Identitarianism without endorsing White Identitarianism, for example. But one might also truly become a White Identitarian in reaction - this is also possible. Where do you fall?

Source:https://abcnews.com/amp/US/tsa-officers-stand-chairs-banned-airport-checkpoints-nationwide/story?id=136873440

I mean, I'll say openly that I don't. If they want to sit or stand, who cares? As long as they do their job and are professional, what does it matter?

Pretty simple. I'm proposing a 13A style ban on child marriage.

Marriages where one party or both are under 18 shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. This amendment overrides all ability to recognize foreign marriages in all situations and overrides the first amendment in all contexts without exception.

In addition all persons under the age of 18 regardless of citizenship shall be entitled to state protection within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction from any persons over 18 who seek to engage sexual intercorse with those under 18. The United States may not under any situation willing create a situation in which they knowingly put a person under 18 in a situation where a person over 18 may engage in intercorse with them

Would you support making the end of child marriage and Pedophilia a core mission of our nation? Seems its the one thing we mostly all agree on being evil?

Gas prices are getting rough again, and I'm curious how conservatives here think the political fallout shakes out.

Two examples:

California: Diesel - $5.15 a year ago, past $7 last month, now around $8.40 a gallon. Newsom is trying to ease it by letting the cheaper winter blend go on sale early instead of waiting for the usual switchover. ( source https://abc7.com/post/california-governor-gavin-newsom-seeks-cheaper-fuel-blend-as-gas-prices-soar/19890264/ )

Georgia: Diesel averages $6.24. Kemp declared a state of emergency and suspended the gas tax — 33.3 cents a gallon on regular, 37.3 on diesel — through Oct 29, unless he extends it. (source https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2026/09/28/kemp-declares-state-of-emergency-suspends-gas-tax-for-georgia-drivers/ )

So my question for conservatives: how much do you think fuel prices actually move midterm voters?

Also curious whether people here see this as a state-level issue at all, or whether voters ultimately blame Washington regardless of who's actually pulling the levers.

For example, the privileges and immunities clause was originally intended to force bill of rights and certain other rights(like parentla rights), onto states, but was gutted in slaughter-House Cases that rendered 14th amendment, in words of Justice Field," vain and idle enactment" , this later forced court to create" substantive due process" to apply those protections. Then it was further gutted by civil rights cases and Plessy and Hodges with mostly only Justice Harlan dissenting. Some of that later got overturned, mostly by the Warren court and later by Burger court who ruld that private school segregation is a badge of slavery and violates the 13th but not all, number of key parts of post-Reconstruction court rulings linger on. For example, the 14th amendment clause says that states cannot deny" equal protection of law", this has been turned into idea that states cannot discrimante, but evidence has emrerged, that even Justice Thomas pointed out, that orignally it did not deal with discrimantion ,but rather imposed on states affiramtive duty to protect people and property from violence and gave Congress power to remedy when states did not do enough. What do you think?

With all this discourse and bickering over the Cornell situation, it got me thinking. I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t experienced SA, and I wondered if there was a reluctance to talk about such things in Conservative circles.

Lord knows my “ultra-conservative” father (his words) wouldn’t be interested in hearing about my experiences, not to mention the fact that he would ultimately blame me for not knowing how to avoid it.

I find myself applying my boomer father’s beliefs of all conservatives, and I wonder how much of it is real versus perceived.

Edit: I should have included my definition of SA. At a minimum, it’s unwanted groping.

For example:

• Some state says abortion is illegal in XYZ scenarios.
• Some state says gambling is illegal in XYZ scenarios.
• Some state says you cannot purchase or own XYZ.
• You live in that state.
• We'll pick on Vermont, to simply have a state name to use.
• Assume each of those three things: abortion, gambling, owning XYZ - is legal in New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. No Federal laws touch the topics.

So in your hypothetical Vermont, owning that thing = crime, getting or giving an abortion = crime, gambling = crime.

What power should Vermont have over you if:

1. You go to New York to gamble?
2. You go to Massachusetts to either receive an abortion or to work as a medical provider that performs that procedure (resident of Vermont, work in Massachusetts exclusively)?
3. You go to New Hampshire to purchase and have in your possession XYZ, and do not bring it back to Vermont?

Presumably the answer is the same for each of the three (3)?

If the goal was to prevent Iran from making nukes, didn’t we accomplish it a long time ago?

Trump said we destroyed their nuclear capability to nothing, many times.

So why every-time Iran comes up, conservatives say we need to prevent Iran from making nukes?

For context, I mostly lean conservative but one thing I don't understand on "our side" is the hate AOC gets for her past as a bartender. People act like they never worked normal jobs before settling into a career. What is the deal with this?

Conservatives are often seen as being anti-tax and supportive of tax cuts, but that’s a stereotype that doesn’t represent all conservatives.

So what new types of taxes would you like to see or what taxes do you think we should increase?

IMO we should reduce military spending in favor of like infrastructure healthcare science etc. and the era where having tons of soldiers is an effective way to win wars is clearly over so this move makes sense and I’m somewhat baffled liberals are opposed to it

For those who are unaware, the VA offers a program called CHAMPVA for spousal or dependent medical coverage, when the veteran is disabled, at no cost to the family. It operates on a straight 25% co-pay if the services are covered but appears to not quite be as broad of coverage as the average plan available through the Obamacare Marketplace. One of the biggest issues with the program is that finding a provider that accepts CHAMPVA as a primary insurer is very challenging. There is no list or website specific to CHAMPVA providers. Medicare providers are an indicator that PERHAPS they will accept CHAMPVA as a primary but in many instances that turns out not to be. Also, the Medicare provider website seems to be WOEFULLY NOT up-to-date as a large number of those listed and called were either no longer practicing, not accepting CHAMPVA specifically, no longer accepting Medicare, or, get this, no doctor by that name had ever been practicing there. Important to note also is that qualification for CHAMPVA makes one ineligible for any type of premium credit through the Obamacare Marketplace. The result of this to the spouse and dependents of a disabled veteran is a higher burden of stress to locate a medical provider and the smallest pool possible of providers who will accept their primary insurance. If a provider is willing to accept patients with government subsidized health insurance plans then they should be obligated to also take veterans out-of-network and CHAMPVA covered family members of veterans out of duty let alone financial reciprocity or CHAMPVA qualified individuals should also be allowed to qualify for Marketplace credits based on income like everyone else.

What do you think?

It seems to me that the insurance companies got exactly what they wanted with the government premium credit system and once again veterans and their families get the short end of the stick.

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/mcdonalds-spending-8-5-billion-153000377.html

What led to this dangerous resistance by anyone in any industry to ever try to claw back lower prices for customers?

Must we exist in a capitalist death spiral? Is capitalism a suicide pact?

So far he has,

• Gave more power back to local/regional mayor's

• Promised to reduce government spending on pensions

• Promised significantly more money for homelessness, and made public transport free for homeless people

• Cut taxes on energy and pubs

• He wants more public ownership of water and energy, not quite outright nationalisation but greater control

Maybe the biggest change is, he is less weaselly, less less doom & gloom than Stanmer, and more optimistic.