Repost I changed the wording as it possibly sounded too violent for Reddit.

We have so many questions about what happens if Democrats win and it's a blue wave and all that.

But what if that doesn't happen?

I dint mean if they just don't win the Senate. It's a toss up and a VERY hard thing to do electorally. I mean a full loss. Republicans keep the house, the senate. Maybe even gain a seat somewhere. If you have a specific race in mind assume the Republican wins with at least Trump 2024 numbers.

Let's not even think of 'oh no what would Trump dooooo".. let's like beyond this. I mean you can talk about it, but let's try to make it just about Trump yet again.

What do you think it will mean as far as the state of the voter base? What do you think the Republican party take from this? How would they move forward? The democratic party? (We probably know what the internet warriors will do so meh to that) the DSA?

What would 2028 look like?

How would you feel about it?

Political tribalism and a refusal to work together feels like it's reaching a breaking point. When i was younger (i'm 100% okay to be corrected on this as i'm likely remembering in a via biased manner) Political ads felt more about policy and what was best for the country and North America as a whole vs now where it feels like nothing but attack ads and just a "well we aren't the other party"

Right now the tents of views under the Republicans and Democrats seems far to wide. You have Democrats that want certain policies but not others from withen their own party and same on the Republican side. Would having a third or forth party help with this and work to help unify more of the country?

I’ve always been of the mindset that both parties are two wings of the same bird. It feels like both sides, at least large aspects of them, would rather rage bait and fear monger, than actually produce solutions.

Do you think anyone in power authentically wants to do good, or is it just these stealth oligarchs hoarding wealth and pitting the common people against each other for whatever means fit the moment? Any time I see potential candidates on either side, they lose because they aren’t playing "the game"

“When will The Wall Street Journal start calling Artificial Intelligence (AI), a very bad and inaccurate name, SI (Super Intelligence), the name which virtually everyone else is using, or soon will be. In short order, we will be officially BANNING the term, “AI/Artificial ⁠Intelligence,” in all relevant documents, and everything else, ⁠due to its inaccuracy.”

- Donald Trump

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-will-ban-term-artificial-intelligence-2026-10-27/

https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2026/10/27/trump-ai-si-bans/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/teen-boys-andrew-tate-jordan-peterson-manosphere-social-media_l_6adbb48ee4b04787f03aed66

‘1 In 3 Teenage Boys Follow This Problematic Influencer — And A New Study Explains Why’

The study asked boys if they follow a problematic influencer like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson. 33% Tate, 11% Peterson, who they described in the article as: ‘Jordan Peterson, a psychologist who is known to spread anti-feminist, sexist ideas.’

I find it interesting that they would group Peterson with Tate as a ‘problematic influencer.’

Tom Tillis's new book just dropped. In it he says

The funny thing about trifectas in Washington is that the winning party always reads it as a mandate. Then, two years later, they realized that the voters simply gave them a chance to govern after the other guys f****d it all up.”

Personally I think it's true. When politicians win it's mandate this and mandate that. Reality is, people vote for a party for specific reasons, but the voters as a whole aren't really endorsing everything the winning party wants.

We elected Obama to end the Iraq war and bring back the economy, not change healthcare. We elected Trump (again) to secure the border and bring back costs, not mess with Medicaid and Iran etc.

I think usually people vote for a party hoping it will bring something back, whether that something is prices or jobs or soldiers stationed over seas.

Conservatives- how do you feel about public education? I know a lot of Conservatives have problems with our public education system, but I feel that a strong, healthy, and robust Public Education system is important for the United States. Better educated children would be a boon for all of us- they turn into better employees, business owners, doctors, lawyers, service men and women, et cetera. I also believe that schools are important for new immigrant children as public schools not only teach them English, but also teach them how to assimilate and become Americans.

How do you feel about our public education system? What works, what’s broken and in need of repair? How would you improve it?

Bias notification- I’m a Texas public high school teacher, husband of a teacher, father of three public school students, and am a product of Texas public schools, and am more of a Moderate Conservative/Independent when it comes to political viewpoints.

Today, in a Truth Social post, Trump said:

In short order, we will be officially BANNING the term, “AI/Artificial Intelligence,” in all relevant documents, and everything else, due to its inaccuracy.

What do you think about that?

Nearly 200,000 people have been laid off in tech since the start of 2026 (source) and Microsoft just yesterday announced a voluntary buyout program for 25% of their workforce (source). Most reasons cited for the cuts are AI and efficiency gains. The monthly job numbers corroborate this data as the vast majority of job growth over the past couple years has been in healthcare and social work. (Source)

Is this something that conservatives are concerned about as AI continues to progress? And at a fundamental level, what is the difference between a company outsourcing manufacturing overseas and a company replacing workers with AI? Why is one usually seen as worse by society when both result in Americans losing their jobs?

Source(s):

• https://colombiaone.com/2026/10/27/flavio-bolsonaro-reportedly-flees-brazil-after-passport-revocation/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/26/world/americas/flavio-bolsonaro-passport-brazil.html

Do you think Talarico has a chance or will win? Do you think Ken Paxton deserves to be a Senator?

Will it be R or D leaning?

Will it be +1, +5, +10 etc?

Or liberals or leftists or anything in the spirit of the question.

This would involve a good faith attempt at thinking/speaking like a socialist and some time hanging out with them/having socialist discussions with them over a period of time. Usually that would mean no sarcastic conservative impressions of a socialist ("i want to give my money to lgbxwubbq people! I like avocado toast!"), and possibly contribute to/survive their echo chamber. You are still a conservative, of course, you are just hiding that part and putting up a convincing act.

EDIT: The reason i asked was that conflict arises because we villainize each other and overestimate how much we actually understand the other sides reasoning in good faith. and that if i asked this question, i would get a lot of "yes i cam because the other side is stupid" instead of "yes i can because i would try to understand them". the question was mostly, can you act like a leftist in good faith, not to not engage to hide in plain sight. shouldve asked in a different way i guess

I certainly would have, and did. But he was pushed out by MAGA. This country would be much better had we went with Desantis

I made a post during the last election asking if anyone was going to vote for Harris from a conservative standpoint. I got a lot of push back but at this point I personally feel pretty vindicated

From a fiscal perspective Trump 2.0 has been one trainwreck after another with zero long term strategy. On a global stage we're rejecting our allies and embracing our historic enemies, while they supply our other enemies we're at war with. The social "conservatives" are at best agnostic about our press secretary being the author of the song titled "Stupid Hoe".

I don't have anything nice to say about the Left or the Democrats, I'm not voting for them because I agree with them on anything. I'm voting for them because that seems the only way to slow down this madness

Israel is holding its election today, a Tuesday and Election Day is a national holiday there. Why can’t we do the same here? Wouldn’t giving people the day off help more people go turn out to vote and participate in our democratic process?

Current L.A. mayor Karen Bass is up against Councilwoman Nithya Raman in the next election. Both are horrific, but Raman is a DSA extremist while Bass, despite a pro-Castro past, is more of a MOR Dem. IMNSHO, the grown-up choice is to vote for Bass to keep Raman out of the office.

California governor candidate Steve Hilton has other ideas. On Oct 24, 2026 he posted the following:

"Voting Karen Bass is morally unacceptable. She has been a complete disaster. There must be accountability. You cannot reward her with your vote. Yes, Nithya Raman is a DSA extremist. But she would be no worse than Bass. Do not vote for either. Los Angeles: I am your only hope."

(source: x dot com/SteveHiltonx/status/2114232104464835065)

Personally, I find Becerra morally unacceptable due to the HHS issue with the kids. However, I also find Hilton morally unacceptable due to things like in effect helping Raman win, his fantasy scam plans ($3 gas & abolishing the DMV will never happen due to the Legislature), him demagoguing methadone (60%+ success rate) and needle exchanges.

On the sins of omission front, he's ignored Becerra using bots to smear him for being white (https://postimg.cc/gallery/PHFbNqh), he's ignored the most damning part of the NYT series on what Becerra did to kids at HHS, he's only focused on waste in Sacramento from the POV of cutting services rather than finding out where all the money went, etc etc.

So, do you agree with him on not urging people to hold their noses and vote for Bass?

I know this is an odd question, since most political parties don't want the label of being exclusionary, but it seems odd that no matter what crime or scandal people commit, their political party [and inherently legal defense funds] would support them to remain on the voter rolls under that banner.

From the Republican side, we have people like Tony Gonzalez R-TX, who has had an affair with a staffer. From the Democrat side, we have people like Eric Swalwell D-CA, same thing.

Expulsion from the party makes a lot of sense, and denying them the right to vote in primaries of the expelling political party.

To me, the US First Amendment right for Freedom of Association, also means freedom of exclusion, if the requirements for association no longer exist.

Especially estate tax targeting very large fortunes? Should it exist or not? If it should, should it be high or not? Should goal be just to raise revenue or to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation? Justice Louis Brandeis, for example, thought estate/inheritance taxes are a necessary democratic check against the extreme concentration of wealth

I have seen stories about this administrations corruption for ages in Left leaning media. But that seemed par for the course. I have not seen much at all in the Right leaning media so I was really surprised to see this Fox poll that it was the #1 issue over even the economy??

I don't understand how that is possible. Do you hear it discussed in your Right leaning circles? The economy is of course a very bipartisan talking point. But corruption? I very rarely hear other conservatives here concerned about it either.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-cost-living-concerns-weigh-gop-midterms

(It's on the fourth graphic down the page)

Comey has been charged again with leaking classified information. There is a potential statute of limitations issue given that the conduct was in October 2016.

It has been investigated by two prosecutors in the last decade and not led to charges either time.

Is this prosecution politically motivated? If so, does it rise to the level of “lawfare”? Are the suggestions of new evidence compelling?

To the extent the prosecution has a signaling/messaging component, does that justify it?

Does this case seem like a winner, stinker, somewhere in between, unsure?