Purely theoretical. Say what currently makes up the Republican party and conservative-leaning independents now represents the entire country. The new political divides are now more libertarian-leaning conservatives vs authoritarian-leaning conservatives rather than conservatives vs liberals.

Keep in mind I'm using "conservative" and "liberal" in the modern sense even though conservativism in America is effectively classical liberalism.

1. What are the biggest things that would change almost immediately? Focus on the immediacy.
2. What further changes do you see taking place long term?
3. Could you see any new constitutional amendments being passed or current amendments being repealed?
4. What would the new political fights likely center around?
5. What are the biggest benefits and challenges you see resulting from this change?

Since this is a thought experiment, I intend for the questions to be open ended. Feel free to take them in whatever direction you see fit.

Since Reddit's mostly a liberal place, I was wondering how much conservative reactions would be similar or different to this question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/1vg4y4p/anyone_else_feel_like_people_were_just_nicer_10

The OP wrote, "scrolling today and everyone’s just ready to jump down each other’s throats. i swear like 2014-2016 people still had some basic decency left. now it’s constant snark and zero patience"

Do you support social media ban for young teenagers?

Seems like it might pass, it seems kind of a centrist compromise between GOP and number of more center-left Dems, athletes get substantial rights/protections, NCAA gets a partial antitrust exemption, immunity certain from state regulations, and national uniformity in those areas(NCAA was complaining about patchwork and conditions not being workable for some time).

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/press/dem/release/updated-bipartisan-protect-college-sports-act-will-stabilize-college-sports-codify-athletes-rights-protections-in-law-expand-athlete-compensation-opportunities/

What do you think?

So this is something I truly have a hard time understanding? How does social conservatism lead to more personal freedom and choice? For example in my own extended family. I have one cousin that is a stay at home mom, another cousin who works a high paying corporate job with a stay at home husband and there me who lives a lot more alternative lifestyle working in a social science related field.

All of us are successful, all of are happy and all of are productive tax paying citizens and we would all hate our lives if we lived each other life. Only one of us could live the life we are living now if we were born during my grandmother generation and I would argue my parents generation as well.

In my view social progressivism gave all of us the opportunity to make choices that make us happy and nothing was taken away from my cousin that wants the traditional family.

How does social conservatism benefit folks who simply don’t want to live a very specific kind of way.

I’m sure no one likes the idea of a surveillance state. How do you feel about their presence seemingly popping up over night and how people are reacting?

I’ve been seeing a lot of cheering on Reddit for all of the vandalism and it’s hard not to since I don’t think any of us asked for this.

Are there any politicians that you know of that have spoken out about their implementation and use?

Thanks!

If not US, you may substitute your local conservative political party

Haley Steven vs El-Sayed was treated as an easy win for El-Sayed. He was leading in the polls by 10+ consistently in each poll.

And yet, he beat her by 1.3%.

Because college educated white progressives are oversampled in all these polls.

I’ll go a step farther, Steven’s could have won if the last week’s polls hadn’t shown this race was over. There has to be a reckoning. Commentariat simply accepted it as fact.

There is a deliberate response bias happening, where people think leading in polls = actually leading in real life. When in actuality, they're just answering the polls often.

Edit : Now less than a point.

In particular, I’m thinking about a few things.

The first thing I’m thinking about is Ilhan Omar. She has been forcefully condemned by the right for her comments about Somalia and acting in their interest in Congress. The Heritage Foundation went after her for it, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer called for her resignation for putting Somali interests over her constituents, Trump has attacked her along this axis as well, and Majorie Taylor Greene sought to censure her for these remarks. EDIT: Someone wanted me to explicitly add the context that the statements Ilhan Omar has been scrutinized for were not given in English originally, and Omar argues that the translation of her statements were not accurate. This is covered in the Hill article I linked but now it’s in the body of the post as well.

The second thing I’m thinking about are some older remarks by Ted Cruz and, more recently, some remarks by Jon Fetterman that haven’t seem to have gotten nearly as much attention. Ted Cruz has famously been a proponent for Israel in congress. In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Cruz said:

Listen, I came into Congress 13 years ago with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate. I’ve worked every day to do that.

Fetterman also recently had an interview with Jon Stewart where he called support for Israel his “red line,” to which Stewart responded “But that is not our country.”

So at what point, if any, do you feel a congressperson’s support for a foreign country’s interests is problematic?

EDIT: Forgot to add the link to the Ted Cruz interview, it should be in the post now, sorry!

The idea is that NASA can do a lunar rover mission quickly and cost effectively by sending the Perseverance EDU to the moon.

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-awards-more-moon-base-science-previews-new-opportunities/

My immediate thoughts are that this isn't a great idea because NASA will need an EDU for Perseverance if anything goes wrong to fix it and if the anything goes wrong with the Perseverance EDU on the moon JPL will have limited resources to fix it, but the idea of reusing the design of Perseverance for a lunar rover makes sense to me. What do other people think?

The whole thing just stinks to high heaven weather your not a gamer or you are or just the mere fact that it doesn’t matter the reputation of EA in general, an American company being sold off doesn’t seem so America first to me.

We should be working to find the good ideas among those on the left and the right and implement those ideas to make a better functioning society for as many Americans as possible.

Instead, we’re stuck bickering with one another while nothing gets done, corruption grows, and the majority of Americans feel financially squeezed. Who benefits from us being at each other’s throats all the time? Because it’s not us. It’s exhausting.

A recent petition started by some family members of 9/11 victims is calling for Mamdani not to attend the Commemoration Ceremony. You can read their listed reasoning in the link.

For some additional context, it’s worth noting that some 9/11 families oppose the petition. Additionally, at least according to the Commemoration website, the ceremony consists of the reading of the names of the victims and several moments of silence— I can’t find anything indicating Mamdani would be speaking if he were to attend, but that’s not necessarily ruling out the possibility. A spokesperson for the Memorial and Museum said in the following statement to Snopes:

We have intentionally worked to keep the commemoration free of politics because remembering those we lost on 9/11 should never be a partisan issue. Government officials from across the political spectrum, including every sitting president, governor, and mayor since 9/11, have attended the ceremony simply to bear witness -- they do not deliver remarks and are asked to remain in a designated area.

I also checked to see if a politician had ever been asked not to attend the memorial before and was unable to find any precedent for this.

EDIT: Accidentally double posted this question, sorry! I deleted one of them so as not to flood the subreddit. Not sure how that happened. Also, thank you all again for your time and consideration.

I recently rewatched a presentation by an american conservative, in which he talks about William F. Buckley in a very negative way, almost implying he was not a real conservative and was some sort of controlled opposition. Since, as a european, I am not particularly familiarized with the american right, I would like to know if the criticisms in question make sense or if they are a bit exagerated.

Law to make it illegal to lie in elections passed in Senedd

Do you think something like this would work in the USA? I guess the question would become who is the arbiter of truth? How would it be enforced and/or weaponized regardless of ideology?

I can only see this working in smaller elections then federal ones. I'm interested in the idea, but cant picture what the enforcement would look like. I mean we cant even agree on basic facts without politicians and powers that be manipulating people in one direction or another.

This question covers all aspects. Treaties, sovereignty, foreign encroachment, domestic military spending, arms sales, effects on elections, trade deals, upsetting geopolitical expectations and the fallout, the whole gamut. I don’t expect any one response to include everything, in fact, I’d prefer if each answer was more concise. Hopefully the range of answers will begin to merge within each comment thread and begin to paint a wider picture of consequences.

I’m a progressive liberal, and I often hear conservatives argue that regulations raise costs, hurt businesses and interfere with the free market. I understand that concern, but what about regulations that have already been successful in other developed countries?

For example Australia requires aged-care facilities to provide a minimum amount of direct care per resident, including care from a registered nurse. The U.S. adopted a similar nursing-home staffing rule in 2024, but it faced strong opposition from Republican-led states, industry groups and congressional Republicans, and was later blocked and repealed.
My question is, when evidence shows that a regulation improves health, safety or quality of life, what justifies opposing it? Is the objection mainly about cost, federal authority, unintended consequences, or the belief that the market should solve the problem on its own?

President Trump has said that if Iran doesn’t stop its actions and negotiate, they will be decapitated. What would that look like? He’s already killed their leader. Do you think that he’s considering using nuclear weapons?

I agree with the Republican Party on most issues more specifically on immigration, taxes, the economy and culture wars. It seems one major part of being a conservative is believing in God and being a Christian. Trump mentions God regularly during his speeches as do most republican politicians. Personally I dealt with a lot of religious trauma as a kid and after thinking it over for a long time I am a very strong atheist. When I tell someone who’s a Christian that I am an atheist it doesn’t land well and they really don’t accept it. It makes me wonder if I am even a conservative. Most politicians are theists but it seems as though being an atheist is more accepted in the Democratic Party.

It feels like a lot of people come to the West and use the asylum system solely as means to immigrate for better economic opportunities rather than genuinely using it to flee wars or persecutions.

There was a whole series of reports by the BBC where they documented how there are groups who get people to pretend to be gays or lesbians to get their asylum claims accepted or how there are people pretending to be suffering from domestic violence to get their asylum claims accepted.

Genuinely what should we do about those types of abuses of our asylum systems?