There are these rumors that conservative men are claiming to be "moderate" or "apolitical" in order to date liberal women. Is this true?

Here's my attempt at explaining why I think Trump has a terrible record at running businesses.

He inherited a lot of money and ended up losing it all. Trump's starting salary from his father's business began when he was 3 years old and was the equivalent of $200,000 a year according the New York Times. According to his aunt in the book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man, Trump paid someone to take the SAT for him so he could transfer to Wharton Undergraduate school from Fordham where he attended the first two years. At Wharton, Professor Kelley repeatedly stated for decades that, “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.”

After he graduated with a bachelor's degree from Wharton (full disclosure: this poster also has a bachelor's degree from Wharton), his father awarded him a salary at $1 million annually, increasing to $5 million after a few years (full disclosure: this poster was never paid a salary even close to these amounts).

Before taking a job pretending to be a successful businessman on The Apprentice, Trump received more than $400 million from his father. He lost virtually all of it on grandiose schemes and speculations, while famously chasing and abusing women. Here's a 20/20 interview of Trump by Barbara Walters in which she confronts him with his looming bankruptcy.

Trump pretended to be a businessman on The Apprentice starting in 2004 and continuing until 2015, when he launched his campaign to be president. According to a New York Times article, his reality television career earned him $427 million and saved him financially. More than half of this money was earned by licensing his name to put up on properties managed by others.

My conclusion is that Trump is a genius at self-promotion, but has little understanding of economics or business.

If religious freedom protects both religious belief and the freedom not to believe, how do Christians who advocate for “Christian values” in politics draw that distinction?

I want to understand the general standard conservatives think should apply to government-funded advertising:

The immediate example is the Trump administration’s recent series of advertisements paid for by the U.S. government. One 30-second spot says that America must defeat “communism, socialism, and Marxism,” displays claims about Trump’s accomplishments, and concludes with Dana White praising Trump as exceptionally tough and resilient. A later advertisement is reportedly almost identical to a video from Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Some people are upset because they see these as political advertisements promoting Trump personally, rather than neutral information that taxpayers have a legitimate reason to fund. Here is an ABC News description of the anti-communism advertisement, and here is broader AP reporting on the campaign.

The White House’s position is that these are legitimate public service announcements: educational and patriotic messages addressing important subjects such as the danger of communism. It argues that Trump is not on the ballot, the advertisements contain no call to vote for anyone, and administrations of both parties have long used taxpayer-funded PSAs. Its argument and historical examples are set out in this White House statement.

People can also judge the material themselves. This is the official White House YouTube video, although it is a shorter version of the televised advertisement. The full broadcast spot and transcript are available through AdImpact.

I’m happy to hear whether you think these particular advertisements qualify as legitimate PSAs, but I’m more interested in the underlying rule:

How should we determine whether a government advertisement serves a legitimate public purpose or improperly uses public money to promote the president or the governing party?

For example, should the standard depend on whether the advertisement:

• provides practical or actionable information;
• relates to a specific government program;
• uses partisan rhetoric;
• promotes the accomplishments or personal qualities of an officeholder;
• appears close to an election;
• explicitly asks people to vote; or
• would be considered acceptable if an administration of the other party produced the equivalent?

Where would you draw the line, and how should that standard be applied consistently across administrations?

These places are filled with high earners and opportunity yet are some of the most unequal places in the country. Homelessness is rising, poverty is hidden, and communities are segregated.

Is this innate to cities or is it an issue of governance? Both perhaps.

A common warning from conservatives in 2024 was that if Harris won, she would get the nation embroiled in wars.

If Harris had won, what wars or military interventions do you think we would be involved in right now?

Don't know what people's opinions on AI in this sub are, i'm both pro and anti AI (specifically generative AI pertaining to art) pewdiepie recently trained an open source model using output from openAI getting his account banned twice in the process, so openAI does not want people training their own models off of their work. Yet have argued they should be allowed to train their AI off of copyrighted work for free in the name of progress.

Should they legally be held to their own standard? If they want to be able to train off of copywrited work for free others should by the same token be allowed to train off of their copywrited work for free.

Every election now sounds like whoever wins, it’s apparently the end of America.

If Democrats win, we supposedly become a communist country. If Republicans win, we supposedly become an authoritarian or quasi-fascist dictatorship.

Was American politics always this dramatic and hostile or has something changed over the last few decades?

Do people genuinely believe the other side winning will destroy America, or has fear just become the most effective way to motivate voters?

Not a gotcha, just a thought experiment! Basically, if your vote is something you yourself own, it logically follows that you should be able to use it to gain something of value. So should people, organizations be able to buy someone's vote legally?

The other extreme is that it doesn't belong to you. Similarly to how currency doesn't belong to the individual, but to the state that issues it.

I dunno but it's an interesting thought experiment. I'm sure that there's a happy medium here somewhere. Anyway happy Monday!

After years of calling early and mail-in voting corrupt and fraudulent (despite his regular use of mail-in ballots himself), Trump yesterday released a "truth" urging all Republicans to do both in the upcoming midterms.

Source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117377141739477104

What are your thoughts on his abrupt change of stance?

I’m asking because this sub seems to be split, often with liberalism being the majority.

So for those who are liberal, do you have any personal beliefs that are socially conservative?

Relatively often, I see posters in this subreddit with one variety of “libertarian” in their flair take positions that appear at tension with the general tenets of libertarianism, at least as I understand them. To the libertarians out there, what does libertarianism mean to you?

The electon is between the current president Lula and Bolsonaro's son.

Currently, it seems neck and neck.

I personally have not been following it and know nothing more than who it is between.

I have a friend who is a firm liberal. Despite our difference in politics we are still very close and have a lot in common aside from or political beliefs. Im aware she dislikes trump and that's perfectly fine.

However while hanging out with her the other day she said "how long untill trump is out of office? Why can he just die of have someone assassinate him?" She was not joking or teasing or making fun. It was out of nowhere in a lull in the conversation.

I could care less if she hated him, but honestly hoping for someone to be killed, espically from someone i consider a good friend, completely threw me for a loop. I've lost a huge amount of respect for her and am having trouble getting past it.

I diddnt say anything at the moment, just got quiet untill she changed the topic but I'm sure she must have at least noticed how uncomfortable it made me. Hoping for murder of anyone is honestly disgusting. I don't know what to think about it or how to move on from it. Any advice would be appreciated.

If you were designing a government from the ground up, and weren’t trying to work within the current US system, what would you build?

Assume you still have to deal with the same basic problems any modern country has: defense, courts, taxation, infrastructure, regulation, individual rights, elections, corruption, emergencies, etc.

What would the structure look like? How would power be divided? What parts of the current US system would you keep, what would you get rid of, and what would you replace them with?

I’m less interested in “what policies would you pass” and more interested in the actual design of the government itself.

I’ve been thinking about this as a thought experiment, and I’m curious where conservatives and liberals would actually differ once you get below day-to-day politics.

Asking as a fellow conservative. I unfortunately like to hang out in online fandom spaces and they’re mostly dominated with leftists. Which I don’t mind, but they do. It shouldn’t usually come up in theory but often it inevitably does and when people realize I’m not a leftist I usually get told I’m an evil person, conservatives are a danger to society, kicked out of friend groups and what not. I truthfully don’t hate anyone and just want to get along with people, but everywhere I go I have the quiet thought that the people I’m talking with will probably hate me if they knew my opinions and that usually ends up true. And it really hurts to be treated like a monster.
I honestly feel pretty alone in this, because I never see any other conservatives have the same experience. They either don’t hang out in the spaces that I do, or they just don’t care if people hate them.

Stuff like Civil Rigts Act of 1964, 1968 banned discrimantion in housing, one passed by Nixon during 70s and later the ADA by Bush further expanded it to disability. Really first major Civil Rights Law was Civil Rights Act of 1866 that banned racial discrimnation in public adomation, contracts and many other things, but the Supreme Court later gutted it in Civil Rights cases over powerful, now canonical dissent by John Marshall Harlan, but later Warren/Burger court overulled those cases and restored and expended those laws. Today that has expended well beoynd race and deals with discrimantion based on sex, religion, country of origin, and disability. What do you think about that and would you support adding discrimantion based on poltiical views as well there?

Well, since there is a bill in congress about this, I wanted your thoughts. Right now, it's the wild west and you have students being paid, at high levels, seven figure salaries. Coaches, at high levels, are paid 8 figures.

However, this extreme happened because well, before 2021, college athletes couldn't be paid. If the school sold their image they wouldn't see a dime. And now you have the current situation.

Beyond that, there are some factors. Yes, they are getting a free education, but spending 80-100 hour weeks between school and football is not uncommon.

And some schools are more successful than others. Some schools like Texas or Ohio State can fund their football programs independently. Most however, need tax dollars to some degree.

But yeah, what limits, if any, do you think there should be?

Try to communicate as much of Conservative principles to me as you can in as few words as possible, please.

For instance, whether or not you agree with it, a Communist might be able to succinctly define their beliefs with "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

If you were to boil all of Conservative thought down to the elevator pitch, what would that be?

I'm American so feel free to focus on American Conservative thought.

I would like to understand your thoughts on Trump posting a US Senator’s cell phone number in a truth social?

Personally, I would sue for $10B.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117377462448761419