Set aside suggestions that revenge is not institutionally possible, that there is no analogous way to "punish" red states or analogous Republican priorities to destroy. Assume a Democrat can find a way to play a reverse Uno card on Trump: undo everything he's done, give progressives every leftist fever dream by fiat, impound money to fund the gayest basket weaving projects NGOs can come up with, etc. All via executive action, and all done so fast that by the time the courts catch up the damage is already done.

Why shouldn't he do it?

​

I’ve been thinking about this lately and honestly don’t know where I land on it.

I’m pretty conservative, and normally I’d say if you want money, you should work for it. I don’t like the idea of the government just handing people money for doing nothing.

But what happens if AI actually gets to the point where it takes a huge percentage of the jobs out there?

Elon Musk has talked about this possibility, where AI and robots could eventually do most of the work and there simply aren’t enough jobs for people. He’s even suggested that some kind of universal high income might become necessary.

That’s a pretty crazy idea, but if it actually happens, I’m not sure the old “just go get a job” argument works anymore.

So I’m curious what other conservatives think.

If AI eventually replaces millions of jobs and there genuinely aren’t enough jobs for everyone, would you support Universal Basic Income?

Would that be one of those situations where government has to step in, or would you still be against it regardless?

Saw this in AskTrumpSupporters (different OP) and thought it was a good question. I've found that I have a very different definition of what a "small" sacrifice is than people on the left when it comes to climate change mitigation, and I think they trivialize what we would lose in the process (or they don't value it to begin with). This could also be applied more generally to humanism, collectivism, empathy, whatever you want to call it. I fundamentally do not believe that absolutely anything is worth giving up if doing so would reduce suffering. I think "the right" trivializes economic struggle (doing away with the minimum wage is an utterly wild position to me, because I do not trust corporations to pay workers adequately on their own) and the effects of systemic racism. I think the right overemphasizes election integrity.

With all the support I am seeing for Flock, I wonder.

We even have a form of “thought police” via social media

This would not necessarily mean giving everyone shares of individual companies, but through something like a national/public investment fund that owns stakes in AI companies and infrastructure. The returns could eventually provide citizens with dividends, similar in concept to Alaska’s Permanent Fund.

The basic premise would be if AI replaces labor with capital, people could receive some of the economic benefits through capital ownership rather than wages or traditional welfare/UBI. I’m genuinely interested in hearing y’all’s thoughts on this. Does it seem like a viable market-based way of dealing with large scale displacement? What problems do you see arising?

I just can't shake the feeling that Trump is sabotaging the GOP political chances for after he's gone due to either petty vendettas (like not passing the SAVE Act) or either he just doesn't give a fuck. His data center comments and his Iran war actions and his comments on affordability and his decisions towards food regulations and just so many other things are starting to suggest intentional sabotage vs an inability to read the room. Is this a mutual feeling the GOP shares or is my read off?

https://www.npr.org/2026/09/01/nx-s1-5950869/trump-mail-in-voting-usps

This portal is meant to scan barcodes and count voter names. It has a zero percent failure threshold, meaning if it isn't an exact 1:1 match with their source data, the ballot will be rejected.

The disclosure triggers a reverification loop instead of being mailed. Meaning that this would result, potentially, in millions of​ mail in votes not being able to be sent out on time due to this system.

As someone who works professionally in the design of these exact types of systems within project management and data governance, the effort to launch this quickly makes me wonder how much testing is actually taking place here. This is a shit show waiting to happen. ​

Trump said recently, and I quote, that "The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. "If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign," he added

While I'm not against all data centers, I do think their rapid propagation, especially in areas with limited water and where utility prices have been shown to rise, are popping up too soon without enough vetting. But more than that, this seems to be fairly bipartisan with both sides being hesitant on data centers. So how do you feel about this polarizing language?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/backwards-poor-trump-issues-dire-warning-communities-blocking-critical-technology.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/08/31/trump-data-centers-backlash-elections-congress.html

What do you think she was going to do? Or is it a way of justifying your vote?

Trump has mostly done quite the opposite of what he campaigned on, he has sold access to his office, made decisions that only benefitted him, started a war, did nothing for inflation, ballooned the national debt and started trade wars with multiple allies.

I don't think she would have done anything to directly hurt Americans like he has.

How can this not be seen in any way but "might makes right", which is antithetical to human norms and democracy.

Are conservatives afraid of a straight battle of voters and ideas?

https://apnews.com/article/texas-voting-poll-closures-talarico-paxton-14753f336d2977fdd0dd88492e707035

I cannot fathom a valid reason to do this as voting is about to start but to "thumb on the scale".

President Trump seems to be making the argument that while, voters might be angry at the moment, "they’re not angry at me.”

He also said in a recent interview, “some people like me more than they like the party."

Do you agree with his assessment that he deserves no blame if the midterms don't go well for Republicans?

Birthright citizenship would only be granted if one parent is a citizen, legal resident (permanent or temporary), and an unauthorized de facto resident who is not severely harmful to the national interest (economic migrants would be okay, but supporters of adversaries, enemies, terrorists, and spies would not).

Birthright citizenship would be denied if both parents are foreign diplomats, foreigners who do not live in the country and those who are severely harmful to the national interest (such as spies, terrorists, supporters of enemies, adversaries).

In exchange for:

Ending any legal difference between native-born and naturalized citizens, also meaning that the presidency would be open for the naturalized. Dual or multiple citizenship would be prohibited for public office holders and candidates with fair exceptions, such as the country has unfair citizenship criteria, grants citizenship unfairly, doesn't allow or make it difficult to renounce, etc...

Births abroad to residents would be treated as births inside the country.

According to the CDC, there are 2,903 reported cases of measles so far in 2026. This is more than any year since 1991, and only seems to be rising.

Why do you think we're seeing this rise in measles, which has had a safe and effective vaccine for decades now?

Decades ago, the military trialed the Active Denial System — a microwave-powered heat ray that makes you feel like your skin is burning, from hundreds of feet away. Its ideal use is clearing crowds and quelling disturbances from a safe distance. The weapon penetrates light clothing to heat the outermost layer of skin, but doesn't damage internal organs or cause serious burns. It's not perfectly safe, but neither are tasers or rubber bullets. The technology has been miniaturized over time, to the size of an LRAD. I have to imagine handheld units will appear on the horizon, as MMICs and GaN technology advance.

Should law enforcement adopt non-lethal Directed Energy Weapons like the ADS? Would it reduce the need to escalate to lethal force? Or would it lead to overuse, or torture?

I was having a discussion with someone on this sub. He or she seemed reasonable and intelligent and I was enjoying the back and forth and dialogue. Then he or she just stopped communicating when the discussion mentioned abortion. It was basically, “you’re wrong and I won’t talk to you anymore.”

Where does that mentality come from?

Seriously. I don’t get it. Do people think that Joe Shmoe working his 9-5 at the bank is being feverishly tracked by the government…. Just because? This isn’t left or right. I’ve seen the fear mongering on both sides. What’s the big deal?

i want other conservatives opinions on this because i’m at a cross road:

i comment in this sub quite frequently and i’ve made no secret on my stance as it pertains to social issues — social conservatives and i often don’t see eye to eye in that regard, and that’s fine. with that being said, as a libertarian leaning conservative, i have a ‘newfound’ concern.

in 2023, a majority muslim town in michigan barred pride flags from being flown on city property. for context, the city council is majority muslim as well: it’s not like a town that happens to be majority muslims, but has ‘nature’ born U.S. citizens as council; it’s not like that.

where my problem lies is it almost feels like i’m holding conflicting beliefs: i don’t believe in social engineering, i don’t believe in forced association, and i’m largely OK with legal immigration, but i have a problem with (for lack of a better term) an imported culture forcing their values onto me - i question why this is deemed acceptable for some members on the left, and why as a society, are we dealing with a preventable problem? assimilation is preventable; it’s not something that, “needs to be done.” i don’t like the government intervening in things though, so i mean, i don’t know…

again, i don’t have my mind made up on it, it’s something i need to sleep on, but i would like to hear other (conservatives) outlook on it, and how maybe other libertarians have reconciled with similar beliefs.

thank you.

EDIT: i apologize, i should’ve included this in my post yesterday. this is a quote from the original reddit post i read about this situation:

In June 2023, the all-Muslim City Council voted unanimously to ban Pride flags from city property, with the Muslim mayor enthusiastically supporting the legislation. Flags celebrating Islamic values/Muslim countries (including Palestinian flags) remain legal to this day. All members of the city council as well as the mayor were re-elected after the legislation passed.

looking back, it could’ve used more context.

With lake Ontario being changed to lake America it is brought up the discussion of name changes, how do you feel when something or someone changes their name?

A lot of things names have changed throughout the years: both government and private companies that were pressured to do so

The Cleveland Indians became the Guardians.

The Washington Redskins became the Commanders.

Aunt Jemima was evicted from the breakfast table and replaced by Pearl Milling Company.

Uncle Ben got demoted to Ben’s Original.

The Native American woman disappeared from Land O’Lakes butter.

Eskimo Pie became Edy’s Pie.

The Dixie Chicks became The Chicks.

Lady Antebellum became Lady A.

Universities and real-estate professionals started replacing “master bedroom” with “primary bedroom.”

Computer programmers began retiring “master/slave” terminology.

Schools, streets, statues and buildings bearing the names of historical figures were renamed by the hundreds.

Then there were the military bases.

Fort Bragg became Fort Liberty.

Fort Hood became Fort Cavazos.

Fort Benning became Fort Moore.

Fort Polk became Fort Johnson.

Fort Lee became Fort Gregg-Adams.

Fort Gordon became Fort Eisenhower.

Fort Rucker became Fort Novosel.

Fort Pickett became Fort Barfoot.

Fort A.P. Hill became Fort Walker.

We even watched Mount McKinley become Denali.

Meanwhile, our vocabulary got its own remodeling job. “Mothers” sometimes became birthing people, “pregnant women” became pregnant people, and “breastfeeding” acquired the alternative chestfeeding in some institutional language.

And Columbus Day? Plenty of cities, states and institutions decided Indigenous Peoples’ Day was preferable.

FDR changed the name of the Hoover dam to the Boulder dam, Truman renamed it the Hoover Dam

President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an executive order renaming Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy to honor him, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names officially restored the historic name Cape Canaveral in 1973

President Theodore Roosevelt signed an authorization changing the executive Mansion to the White House

Then there is that subject that we can't discuss where names are changed

So I asked what's in a name? Does it really matter? Do you care? Will you use the dead name of these places

The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier is set to make a temporary stop in Thailand next week as it heads back to the United States, Thai navy officials said, after spending more than 250 consecutive days at sea supporting US operations against Iran amid recent reports of poor living conditions and low morale onboard the vessel.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/27/uss-abraham-lincoln-thailand-visit

I’ll start by saying I’m fine people having guns in this country but I am seeing on social media more people say that the reason we have the second amendment is to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. Now 250 years ago that is 100% true, and the underlying purpose of the amendment is still to achieve that. That being said anyone who truly believes that in this day and age a scrappy group of revolutionaries can pick up their rifles and take on a tyrannical. US government are kidding themselves.

Back in the day when there was a far more level playing field between the government military and the people the second amendment made far more sense but are we kidding ourselves thinking that the reason for the second amendment 250 years ago can still apply today?

1770s, revolutionaries had cannons, muskets, and pistols. Redcoats had the same. Redcoats had more, but the same. Today the US military has drones, jets, and tanks.

One of the criticisms from the right directed at the left was that the left left no spaces free of politics and that there was no where to go to just be unified by our love of something American. I always felt that criticism was legitimate. I think it would be great to just watch a game, listen to the radio or go to the park and just be an American.

But since the start of Trump's second term it feels like even more has been politicized. I never enjoyed watching sports, so any given protest by an athlete didn't affect me or my social circles. I'd only see it when I was seeking out news coverage.

After Covid, it seemed to me like the urge to make everything political had received a fair amount of backlash and was subsiding.

But now we have former NBA players stirring up politics in the WNBA by making an issue out of something that isn't happening in the WNBA. We have the right making alternative half times shows for the Superbowl, and Trump is renaming geographical features for political purposes.

For all the politicking on the left, it never invaded my maps app. I live on the great lakes and pretty close to Lake Ontario/America . If I have to plan any trip out of my city for work or trainings, I see the newly changed map name.

Is it a big deal? No, not really, but it certainly feels like MAGA is injecting politics into way more of my life than the left ever did, and I wanted to hear your perspectives on this suggestion.

Do you think the left still did it more? Do you not think of the examples i listed as politicization? Do you see the things you had previously been annoyed by from the left in a new light now that Trump is changing history and having political fights on our daily commutes.

If this sounds like an abortion adjacent question, you're right, it is. The common logic I've heard used in such discussions just didn't seem right to me, so I'm curious if the logic goes further than just pre born people.

So, for the purposes of this question, assuming for whatever reason that you are unwilling to give up your kidney to your child, should the state be able to force you because your child has a right to live and needs your organs to do so? If you don't, should you be charged with murder? Is there a reason I'm not seeing why this logic would apply to pre born and not post born?

Edit: this has been an interesting discussion. The most common answers I've seen were "morally, the right thing to do is-" and "it's not the same because one is an invasion procedure and the other is a natural biological process." There was also some talk about women consenting to being pregnant the moment they are ejaculated in regardless of circumstances. All in all an enlightening conversation, ty conservatives. I wont be replying further.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-biden-era-cbp-fabricated-a-document?r=12g27c&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email