https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr50ddzl97qo

As one of the most prominent right wing figures in the UK and someone who proclaim to have close ties to Trump, the recent investigation has shown just how corrupt Farage is.

With him even admitting to not caring about breaking UK law.

Personally I'm a big fan of parents and communities being able to have schools the way they want them. If parents want to send their children to a Muslim school, then that's their choice. If parents want to send their children to a convent school, then that's their choice, etc..

However I seen an interesting news story that some of the dress codes that Muslim schools have include the hijab.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/31/muslim-school-barnet-hill-academy-wear-hijabs-state-funded/

Personally I'm conflicted, I'm a big fan of school choice, but what happens if there is no other school nearby and one student isn't Muslim... I'm leaning towards it being fine.

My questions are in regard to Vance's comments on a Christian podcast. The first quote is from Axios:

Asked about his thoughts on the "end times" during his appearance with Christian podcaster Bryce Crawford, Vance said he's unsure if we're in them, but that there are some things "about the world" that would make him "not shocked if the Antichrist was walking among us."

and this is from the BBC:

... the Antichrist is seen as the enemy of God who appears during the final phase of the world's existence and takes it over....

His friend Rod Dreher, a conservative writer, rejected any suggestion that the comments would harm the vice-president. He told the BBC's Today programme: "Most Americans who are inclined to vote Republican already believe this stuff."

Finally, this is from the Guardian:

JD Vance has said he is “doing as much of God’s work as possible” and that he is OK “if that leads to the end times”, which he says “are coming”....

In response to a question about whether he had ever been in a room that was “spiritually dark”, Vance said he had “been in meetings with world leaders where various issues are being discussed, and somebody will say something or somebody will make an observation, and I’ll feel some darkness about it”.

“It sets off every spiritual alarm bell in my body,” he added.

I have two questions:

One, as a republican, do you, as Dreher said, consider Vance's comments uncontroversial, because you "already believe this stuff"?

Second, if you don't personally hold these views, would you be okay with voting for a man for president who believes in unseen evil forces that he believes he has a religious duty to combat, and who could plausibly put his perceived duty to further God's 'plan' for the world ahead of his duty to uphold the constitution?

I just saw an article stating that funding is being withheld from a government program designed to help states combat election misinformation and cyber threats.

https://www.npr.org/2026/09/03/nx-s1-5954541/election-security-midterms-dhs-democrats

The article notes that this is not an isolated event - the Trump administration has been shutting down or defunding other election security and integrity related organizations within the government since his inauguration, including some he started in his first term.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-security-cisa-justice-department-fbi-federal-worker-cuts/

Since Trumps’ rhetoric has been focused on strengthening election security how do you explain these actions which seem to work in the opposite direction, weakening security?

The main job of the rich is allegedly to make the risky investments that ordinary people cannot, creating new products that keep the USA ahead of cheap-labor nations that we couldn't compete with if not for changing technology. However, due to the frequency of bubbles, others say these are a kind of Ponzi scheme and/or tax-haven where the non-rich (us) and gov't (debt) usually end up holding the bag. In other words, the rich are allegedly gambling with mostly house money such that if they win they keep it, but if they lose, much of the bill falls in our lap.

The guiding principle of Trump's second term seems to be "I can do anything you can't stop me from doing." Even Roberts wrote in the ballroom opinion that "That construction [of the ballroom] is likely unlawful" and Congress that has the obligation of control over Federal parks is saying nothing allowing SCOTUS to toss out a legal attempt to block the construction on standing.

If the President's party has majorities in both houses of Congress there is not going to be many that have legal standing to challenge many Presidential actions and the Trump administration has shown us that even if you lose you can appeal and you may still be able to move forward long enough for facts on the ground to moot any legal question.

The President is openly having his FDC go after his critics, he's trying to use the postal system to subvert the power given to Congress and the States to run elections, he's sent the military into States without being asked for the purposes of federal law enforcement, he tears down whatever structure he wants and builds what he wants without permission or appropriations from Congress on federal lands, he's having the Military invest in oil operations in a foreign country and making the US government an owner in it. The President has even issued his own crypto currency which he profits on.

Given all of this what should the next President from the Democratic party learn from these years? If the guardrails are really and truly gone do Conservatives really think "we can stand upright in the winds that will blow?"

Do you think corporations ask too much or too little of employees?

What would you implement in order to make employment more valuable for the average american outside of just a means of survival?

Topics can include:

Vacation time

Pay

Maternal/paternal leave

Sick time

Work life balance

Cost of living

How hard/easy people are working

Home ownership

I mainly just wanna get a read on the conservative view of the current work culture in america.

As reported here and other places https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-announces-biggest-oil-deal-world-history-says-substantially-lower-gas-prices

What are your thoughts on the recent US-Venezuela deal which gives the US effective control over huge amounts of Venezuelan reserves? How should the governance of this deal be structured to prevent corruption and cronyism, either within Venezuela or the US?

This is NOT a question about Trump and his admin. He will be out of office by the time this deal really kicks in.

I'll be brief imo.

1. Lack of training: ICE dropped standards to a new low in order to get their numbers up, this lead to poorly trained agents.

2. Loss of narrative: The Trump Admin sold the narrative of dangerous illegals, only to lose control as negative stories involving ICE agents rapidly increased due to the number of agents, and everyone having phones.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/04/about-half-of-americans-continue-to-say-trump-administration-is-doing-too-much-on-deportations/

This is something I've been pondering for the longest time. Based on what I've seen from this sub (which I view as more moderate than the average conservative I interacted with IRL), the general opinion is that virtually no democrat will ever get a vote over a republican base on party alone. Not to mention, there are "issues" with almost every democrat that disqualify them anyway.

Hillary - untrustworthy corporate sellout

Biden - weak on immigration with no hard foreign policy

Kamala - no policy direction

AOC, Bernie - socialists

All of the candidates above are wildly different, from progressives to corporate democrats that have very little republican voter turnout. Even someone like Fetterman, with the lowest approval rating of all democrats by a wide margin, is not that much higher on the right either because he still votes left sometimes.

Maybe you say, " Well, what about a Beshear kind of guy. A very moderate candidate from a purple to reddish state? The polls put him in a Romney situation.

So my question is to you all: if conservatives in general are against, and basically will never support, all forms of the left-leaning voter base, should a Democrat ever appeal to them in any form?

Based on what I've seen here and IRL, I've become more of the opinion that Democrats should not bother appealing to voters who have zero interest in them, no matter how moderate they try to be (economically and foreign policy, and socially, they haven't in a while much more left leaning), and have clear hardline goals.

For example:

1. Be the strong union party again

2. Medicare for all

3. Ending all support for Israel and reducing military conflicts worldwide (isolationism)

4. Balancing the budget (through tax increases and spending cuts)

Any one of these would be seen as poison by the right, but from what I understand, this was already the case. If you disagree, I would like to understand then what it would take for you to vote for a Democrat based on pure policy (not because the right candidate is so bad you sit out; I mean actually vote purely on policy, blue).

Sony is in court and have argued that no reasonable person would think that they own a digital game they bought, if i do not own a product only a temporary license to use it that can be taken away at anytime for any reason should the bussiness langauge be legally required to reflect that fact. For example advertisements for the new GTA 6 should not say "buy the new GTA 6 today" but "license the GTA 6 today" as i'm not buying it but renting/licensing the digital product/movie/show?

A recent thread here is asking what folks think the Democrats are going to take from this DJT administration. It appears that the most common response is that they will imitate it, since the standard has now been lowered.

But is there anything that republicans could do to prevent that from happening?

For example - if an impeachment came from the right post midterms (not likely I know, but we’re in the world of hypotheticals) - would that possibly be the kind of action that would stimulate a bi-partisan move to repair Trumps damage?

Please don’t just focus on that one possibility - I’m really curious if there are any pro-active steps republicans could do to make things better.

I was reading an article about Texas closing polls near college campuses and someone posted this quote

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy." David Frum

which had e wondering where conservatives place their values on a hierarchy. Would you rather live under a despotic system that shares your values and governs in ways you agree with or deal with the messiness of democracy (be it direct/representative republic/etc.)

Personally, I value democracy much more than my own political leanings/ opinions, but I imagine there's a lot of folks who feel the opposite on both sides of the aisle.

Here in the UK, (similar situation across europe)

- Borrowing costs have just hit an 18 year high

- Taxation as % of GDP is at an all time high

- Productivity and economic growth has close to stagnated, we're consistently seeing around 2% GDP growth

Our forecasts are looking like more of the same, not catastrophe but rather a very slow and consistent decline.

Prior to the 2008 financial crash, the US and Europe's economy were essentially the same size. Since then, Europe has stagnated and the US has excelled financially.

Do you think this can be turned around, and if it can, how?

I have an interest in this case, I think it’s perfectly and tragically illustrative of some serious societal failings that have festered for a generation (at least) and are now visibly manifesting.

To put it bluntly, it seems like “OJ for white women.”

That women would see themselves in another woman who killed her own kids, instead of defending the actual kids and victims. What does it say about our orientation to children?

That women would concoct conspiracies about the husband doing it or masterminding it, despite Clancy herself or her defense not alleging any of that. What does it say about how women feel about men?

It also seems like a commentary on our ethical system: there is no accountability, or right and wrong, or evil. There is only neurosis and disorder. We need medication, therapy, treatment. Not punishment. Doing a heinous crime isn’t you, it’s just external factors overpowering your will. What does it say about our moral compass?

Do you think the case is indicative or illustrative of anything? Do you have any other thoughts on the case as it pertains to the cultural impact? Am I the only one?

I'm curious if conservatives view Russia favorably. From what I understand, Russia considers the US a forever enemy, an example is supporting Iran in it's war with the US.

I also understand some conservatives find commonality with particular values they believe Russia has. The president seems to view Russia favorably and I wonder if this is a concern for other conservatives. Thank you!

Assuming the Democratic Party wins the house and senate this fall, what do y’all expect will they impeach Trump for? Bonus question: do you think there are any legitimate reasons to impeach him?

I've been thinking about a potential federal statute and I'm curious what people think about it, including potential problems I haven't considered.

The basic idea:

Whenever the federal government spends money on military intervention overseas or provides military funding, weapons, ammunition, or other direct support for a foreign war—the federal government would be required to appropriate an equal amount for infrastructure and public schools in the United States.

The domestic funding would be divided equally among all 50 states.

For example:

If Congress approves $100 billion in military spending or assistance connected to a foreign conflict, another $100 billion would automatically be appropriated domestically.

$100B ÷ 50 states = $2 billion per state.

Humanitarian assistance such as food, medicine, disaster relief, and civilian assistance would NOT trigger the requirement.

There would also be one major exception: a formal congressional declaration of war.

If Congress formally declares war under its constitutional authority, the matching requirement would no longer apply to expenditures for that war.

The reasoning is that Congress would then have to choose:

1. Don't intervene militarily.
2. Intervene without declaring war, but match the military expenditure dollar for dollar with investment in the states.
3. Formally declare war, eliminating the matching requirement but requiring members of Congress to publicly take responsibility for entering the war.

An AUMF or similar authorization would not count as a declaration of war.

The idea isn't to restrict humanitarian aid or prevent the United States from defending itself. It's intended to create a fiscal consequence for conducting or financing military operations abroad without formally declaring war, while directing that additional spending toward infrastructure and education at home.

There would obviously need to be detailed definitions covering things like intelligence operations, weapons transfers, military training, classified expenditures, treaty obligations, and what qualifies as humanitarian versus military assistance.

What do you think? Would something like this create a useful check on undeclared military intervention, or would it create unintended incentives or fiscal problems that outweigh the benefits?

I know that not all conservatives support this war against Iran, and neither do i. Nor do i defend Iran. But i have been wondering what conservatives think on this matter.

The Irani government is an evil and crooked government. Just as crooked as the Russian, Chinese and North-Korean governments, or actually dictatorships is the right word.

While the US and Israel might see Iran as a threat, they also see the US and Israel as a threat. And i cannot say that the US and Israel are not threat to Iran. Infact Iran has been attacked by both countries.

Both the US and Israel have nuclear weapons. I understand from the Iran POV, that they would like to have nuclear weapons aswell, especially now.

So why should Iran accept that the US and Israel have nuclear weapons but they can't? Why would they ever agree on that? What's the logic in that?

Obviously we can’t make a million exceptions to our immigration laws because of suicide threats, but come on. There has to be better ways to do things then this. The kid had lived as an American his whole life, he would have been proud to be one. Instead we sent him back to his shithole country of origin and he killed himself instead.

It’s a sad, sad story.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/haitian-college-student-ohio-dies-apparent-suicide-losing-tps-status-family-says

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/02/trump-hormuz-strait-ontario-iran.html

I actually agree with this one, I think this is the only thing which should be named after Trump actually