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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

Edit because more than one person has assumed I meant the year - this is a book by George Orwell.

​

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?

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. ​

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?

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?

A Biden push was to have cars reach 51 mpg by 2031 but Duffy and Trump will be moving that to 35 mpg. Why is a goal of having more fuel efficiency a bad thing? Should we not push automakers to make better cars?

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.