I hear so many conservatives already complaining that the elections in alaska are fraudulent just because two people with the name Dan Sullivan are on the ballot. it clearly lists their party affiliation and who the incumbent is on the ballot and their names arent even spelled the same, so im failing to see the big deal in this and how this is fraudulent. It would be very hard to accidentally vote for the wrong one for reasons above.

Even if peltolas campaign did recruit the other sullivan to run, Its not against Alaska's election laws for a political candidate to convince another candidate to run to attempt to split a vote for their opponent.

Is it Scummy? Yeah a little, but illegal and fraudulent? No. So why are conservatives calling this fraudulent?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6178270-peltola-denies-sullivan-recruitment-alaska-senate-report/amp/

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

“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/

Scalia in Smith gutted previous Warren era kind of strict scrutiny on laws, even general laws, that substantially burden religious exercise. Scalia said that generally applicable laws, even if they burden religious exercise, are valid. For example, if Congress did not exempt wine for churches during prohibition, and just banned all of it, that would be valid under Smith, even though it would have effectively banned catholic mass.

Back then, justices that dissented in Smith, were almost all liberals( other than O'Connor) because they wanted to use Sherbert to protect religious minorities. And indeed bill to try to reverse Smith, was introduced by Schumer and passed by unanimous consent in the 90s I think. Funny how tables have turned?Democrats have turned against religious liberty, and now it is mostly conservatives who dislike Smith and want the Warren era test back. What do you think?

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.’

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?

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’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"

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

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?

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)

Will it be R or D leaning?

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

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/entertainment/4779102/nicki-minaj-press-secretary-steven-cheung/

Now to be fair this was most likely a joke but let’s be honest this is the Trump administration anything can happen?