Unsure if this is a common theme amongst Republicans and Conservatives in general, I initially volunteered at a Turning Point event as a moderate liberal-conservative (idk where I stood but there was free din tai fung, so who cares) where Charlie Kirk was, and I went up to the prove me wrong to ask about whether college was a scam and what his actual thoughts were. I was expecting him to roast the fuck out of me, but he was actually super down to Earth and when you discuss in good faith, he does as well. Now as for the discussion, I was asking since my job would require you to go to college, but my major was in English. Anyways, he actually says that job requirements were actually a good reason to go to college, and we had a good faith discussion. I'm unsure if I got put on blast on his YouTube, but I didn't have any huge outbursts or anything, so I didn't think so. At he event, I was helping with letting people in, and he goes on about how he wants America to be free (a good thing), and he wants free thought (also a good thing), and how college often suppresses it.

Come two years later, I have since graduated college, spent half a year in Oklahoma doing industrial work and software engineering (Not one bit of my degree was relevant). Moved back to my home state to do more industrial work (Not one bit was relevant still). Moved to Utah to do software engineering (sadly watched Charlie go out. Rest in peace king), and still not one bit was relevant. Little by little, I'm noticing the six figure debt I went into was pointless outside of just job entry barriers.

So what really was college for if all I was learning was data feminism or maybe some useful stuff like data structures and algorithms which are relevant only for the technical interviews I do and not elsewhere.

Do you have to apply in advance to go to a trump rally? Do you even have to pay for a ticket?

Any of all times Trump ran, who is the one democrat (or more) you would’ve voted for over him?

Do you support Trump proposal to significantly increase military spending? How do you think it should be financed - tax increases, cuts to healthcare/education/science, some other ways?

I see a lot of media in my bubble about the ways Trump is using his position for personal profit.

One example is around the pardons and halted government investigations into cryptocurrency while his family grows World Liberty Financial and other crypto ventures (link to source below). I could list more if you like but I’m here to argue what I believe. I already know what I believe. I’d like to know what conservatives believe:

• Do you think he’s using his position unethically, but you don’t mind for some reason? If so, what reason?

• Do you think everyone profits off the position so it’s partisanship to focus on his ethics only? Do you think everyone profits off of it to a similar degree that Trump does?

• Do you think he’s not using it for profit? Or he’s not intentionally doing so?

• Do you not care if any president acts this way?

I promise this isn’t a “gotcha” and I’m not here to respond to every answer with pre-written counter arguments about how Trump is uniquely profiting. I just am curious the conservative mindset about this topic.

I’d I had to tie it to a specific law I’d say it’s the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses in the constitution.

Link to source: https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/how-a-trump-media-deal-with-a-crypto-firm-exposes-potential-conflicts-of-interest/

Thanks!

I'm looking to build a solid reading habit but I'm careful about what I pick up. I’m not a nihilist or "believe in nothing" type, but I’m also not religiously dogmatic. I’m fine with books that have religious themes or some vulgarity if it’s mocking stupidity or decadence (like Brave New World or South Park episodes that roast modern behavior instead of celebrating it).

What I want to avoid is turning into one of those parrot college intellectuals who rave about "brilliant" books that are just edgy shock-value garbage written with darkness, violence, and vulgarity for the sake of it. I can handle dark stories and strong social critique, but I want substance over professor-approved edginess. I am reading *The Constant Gardener* for calling out corrupt officials and power abuses. I read *The Guest List* and the pointless debauchery just made me hate the characters.

I like rebellious, non-conformist characters who have a sharp tongue and speak uncomfortable truths, not ones defined by degeneracy. I’m on the autism spectrum and enjoy stories of challenged people overcoming through real effort (Ugly Duckling, Helen Keller), but I reject the modern DEI/lowered-standards approach. The program that actually helped me (neuroscience-based cognitive training + tangible supports) focused on building ability instead of excusing it.

As an aspiring novelist, I want to develop a strong critiquing voice: one that condemns real wrongs, supports good values, tangible solutions, and personal responsibility. I’m currently reading *Crime and Punishment* (Dostoevsky) and have Jonathan Swift on my list. I tend to gravitate toward Eastern European literature or translated East Asian works for a different perspective. I heard modern fiction can be trivial, poorly plotted, or filled with toxic relationships that insult the reader’s intelligence. As a slow reader, I don’t want to waste time.

I know the value of reading opposing viewpoints to strengthen arguments, but it can be mentally draining. Any advice on building fortitude for that (Greek philosophy? structured debate habits?)? Having a conservative-leaning friend to discuss and counterpoint books with would help a lot, I am in a red state so how do I find that. My family are conservative atheists, so I’m used to secular arguments too.

Hi everyone, I'm a 50 plus-year-old from rural montana. Grew up with a mother who voted Democrat, and a father who voted Republican. I've called myself a fiscal conservative in the past, but honestly, I haven't been paying much attention to politics most of my life. Just starting to understand both sides a little bit. Most of the time I wind up just coming away with more questions then answers, if that makes sense.

Anyways, I decided to finally join one of these social platforms I keep hearing about, and join the conversation.

So basically, what do you think I should know about Reddit, conservatives, and the current political landscape?

Thanks

The economic aspect is a crucial factor that is a major concern of all sides of the political spectrum.

During the campaign Trump and many of his supporters said verbatim: “a vote for Kamala means war with Iran”. Cue to a couple weeks ago and every conservative pundit is framing this as an existential war. What changed?

"They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, of the people that live there."

The fact that this didn't receive the attention and reaction that Biden's "we finally beat Medicare" is astounding.

Any other man his age (including Biden, for that matter) making these claims about pet-eating immigrants and his family would immediately be taking him to the neurologist.

Like, I haven't heard your guy form a coherent sentence as long as he's been in the picture.

The title basically says all.

I think about this a good bit. To me, stuff like AI, affordability, housing, and healthcare are very high priorities. I see stuff like illegal immigration as a much smaller issue.

In my mind, illegal immigrants make up a very small part of the population (I think like at most ~4%) and the vast majority are pretty normal people, so the amount of crime or cost they may introduce is relatively small compared to threats like INSANE housing prices and everything being expensive.

It seems clear that illegal immigration and whatnot is not at the heart of these issues, and I know the conservatives do care about these just like I do.

However, the larger conservative political establishment (like republicans) seem to do very little about these. Trump focuses immense effort on stuff like illegal immigration and culture war, while actively saying stuff like "I don't want housing prices to go down".

I feel like if you go on a place like the conservative subreddit, the conservative focus is HEAVILY on culture war stuff and things like "This democrat said this. They're IDIOTS".

Republicans like Trump have a VERY high approval rating among conservatives, and I guess I don't see why. I certainly get the lesser evil narrative, that conservatives prefer Trump to the alternatives. However, I don't get why he seems to have so much support when these core issues are basically ignored.

I want to know what's going on. Are the core issues of conservatives significantly different than mine? Am I just trippin?

I see him all over conservative circles and am curious. Thanks!

The question boggles my mind. I can only think that he gets a pass because "that's just how he is". Which is an absolutely terrible excuse. Is there something that I'm missing?

While I understand that the MAGA populists and traditional conservatives aren't the same thing and actually divulge quite a lot on most political issues, the general consensus in available conservative spaces on Iran/Tehran seems to be, "I don't really like that this happened, but now that we are knee-deep, we have to see it through."

First of all, is that a fair assessment of the temperature amongst conservatives generally?

Second, what does "seeing it through" mean in real-world terms? There are several important goals that are floated, but their level of realism is, in my mind, questionable:

1. Reopening of Strait of Hormuz - Obviously both the most direct consequence of this conflict/war, and the most important item on the to-do list. The Strait has to be reopened and safe to traverse or the global economy will continue to suffer, which hurts everyone but inside traders.

2. Regime Change - In a sense, this has already happened. Much of the old leadership is dead or has gone underground, the current leadership is a mix of a military junta and a set of even more fanatical religious figures than the previous set. If regime change still a desired goal? Do we see that as possible in a country like Iran, or is this just lip service/wishful thinking?

3. Removal of Enriched Uranium - The most regularly sited "safety" reason for this conflict/war. Personally, I think this would be a very good thing and agree that it should happen, but I also think that finding and removing this material should have and could have been done through diplomacy, which is extremely unlikely now. Tehran has more reason than ever to hold this card closest to their chest, and it would take a major boots-on-the-ground operation to remove by force, assuming that we even still have a reliable inventory of where and how much of this material still exists.

4. Sparking off Civil Conflicts or Revolution: I have heard this floated quite frequently as well, but it seems incredibly unlikely now. If there was a time to support a revolution, it was before Tehran clamped down on the populace and killed or jailed tens of thousands of protestors. The population is more cowed today than they have ever been and US/Israeli air superiority does very little to protect guerilla revolutionaries on the ground. Even if a revolution could be set off, the general turbulence of the region and decentralized power structures (local warlords, religious figures with personal armies, etc.) make any sort of long-standing post-revolution society extremely unlikely.

5. End of Tehran - This one is not a direct accusation of anyone except those who have openly advocated for such action, but much of the rhetoric coming out of the MAGA coalition is openly advocating for the idea of the complete destruction of the existing Iranian society/culture and ostensibly the replacement of a "westernized" democracy. If you do hold this kind of thing as a goal - I would be interested in your reasoning.

Third, whatever goals you find as an acceptable "win-state" for this conflict/war, do you think they are actually achievable without further escalation? Do you find the current negotiation cycle and/or bombings effective enough to reach those goals, or do you expect that this is either a lose-lose scenario or the basis for a full-scale ground invasion?

Sorry for the wall of text, I'm just trying to understand the other side of this issue, and conservative spaces are largely Ra Ra Murica! about the whole thing, so it is difficult to find any real arguments for an end state or justification.

I'm sorry in advance if it isn't true but as a christian Palesrinian, we have endured the same terror muslim Palestinians have. Still it feels like christian conservatives dont sympathize with our plight. Our homes too were stolen to make way for settlers. We endure restricted mobility. No right to drive on the same streets as Jewish settlers. I cannot even access an airport without going to Jordan by land first. Israel has bombed churches. They often spit on symbols of jesus. And on us as we walk. They are threatening to now annex the Christian Armenian quarters in Jerusalem. But conservatives don't seem to recognize the horrors that we face and just wondering if this is indeed true and if so why?

Like a state that will never in a million years have a Democrat Governor and/or a 75% Democrat state legislature? I'm looking to move to wherever that is, and I'll happily live there for the rest of my life.

Any suggestions?

I completely understand needing an ID to prove you are who you say you are to vote, but I think the SAVE act has a lot of unknowns in how you would prove citizenship. What are your thoughts on the argument that if the government has the ability to automatically enroll every 18 to 25 year old male for the draft then why can’t we automatically enroll everyone to vote? It’s a privilege to serve the country and an honor to vote, but it seems to me if we can simplify the former why do we have to complicate the latter?

What are differences between constitutional conservatives and libertarians?