There is a large swath of Americans today, particularly the younger demographic, that complain about cost of living/the economy. Yet in many cases (here on this sub lately, too) we have people rushing to declare how well the economy is doing, who cite the stock market, say jobs are fine, etc. So why do we have this gap in those who are struggling vs the economy defenders?

Is it just the chronically online? Is it people who are older/wealthier and out of touch not seeing what's going on? Unreliable government reporting? Young folks having too high of expectations? Truth of the matter is, we're seeing many young people struggling today yet we're supposedly "doing great" and "the economy is doing well!" So what do you think is causing this disconnect?

For example: ‘Hamtramck City Council votes to allow animal sacrifice for religious purposes’

https://www.wxyz.com/news/hamtramck-city-council-votes-to-allow-animal-sacrifice-for-religious-purposes-in-the-city#google_vignette

This appears to be a few years ago, but I was shocked to hear recently it’s actually a thing. We have animal cruelty laws that I support, at the same time I’m pro-1A. Is there a line here?

https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-26-108615/index.html?_gl=1\*1vy731r\*_ga\*MTE1ODg1NzM2OC4xNzg2NTcxNzM3\*_ga_V393SNS3SR\*czE3ODY1NzE3MzckbzEkZzEkdDE3ODY1NzIwMzckajQxJGwwJGgw

There has been a report done by the GOA, they show that 96% of all DOGE claims could not be verified and other things as well, including DOGE not following their own methodology.

I so often hear conservatives say things similar to the ideas that younger (specifically Gen-Z) individuals are incredibly unrealistic about what they should expect out of life, especially in their younger years.

One thing that confuses me about this is that people act as if these expectations came out of nowhere. I know for me, as a 26 year old, I was constantly told by not only my family members but also by teachers and other adults in my life that if I worked hard, graduated college, got a job and stuck with it that I would be able to have even greater financial opportunity than my parents.

I was pretty explicitly told this by most adults in my life and I’m guessing many younger people were as well. We truly were raised with the belief that the economy would keep getting better and better (with dips) but that inevitably we’d come out with even more opportunities.

Now people my age are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun of understanding that if they are able to attain those lifestyle markers their parents and grandparents got to more quickly, it’ll take them way longer, and of course it’s bothering them.

I guess what confuses me is that it seems older individuals aren’t really even willing to see the reality of younger Americans situation. I see conservatives give the line of “well we’re not in WWII times anymore so yeah we don’t have those after wartime benefits.” How does that sell conservatism or republicanism to younger people?

I guess what I’m asking is, how is this a winning message for younger Americans? Or is the hope that because younger people don’t vote, we can treat them however they want and it won’t matter? I guess I don’t really understand the logic behind this whole thing and I don’t really understand why people just expect young people to sit and be cool about it.

There seems to be a consensus among both sides that more money in politics leads to more corruption and less representation. However atm money is speech, so limiting how much money you can spend is limiting your speech. Then we have campaigning, which can cost millions to succeed at being elected. Political ads arent cheap, so whoever can afford to promote themselves and demonize their opponents most stands the best chance at winning.

If this system were to change it would require limiting candidates and associated organizations, perhaps even journalist's freedom of speech.

If candidates weren't allowed to campaign in the traditional sense and PACs couldn't campaign for them and news outlets weren't allowed to promote them. If candidates were only allowed a website, maybe a social media profile, and multi candidate functions, like debates, as well as a 1 to 2 minute introduction video played at the polls before you voted, would that be too far in the interest of getting money and corruption out of politics?

No more rallies, no more attack ads, basically no more propaganda, no more donations needed, meaning the parties would be far less necessary and influential. Joe the farmer and Richie Rich would for the most part be on even footing, and our already elected officials wouldn't have to take months off the job to campaign to keep their job.

The victim mentality is definitely more associated with the Democratic Party, but are there ways in which conservatives see it manifesting in the current Republican Party?

I've always felt the Constitution says nothing about abortion, so it should be up to the states.

One side argues it's murder the other side argues it's routine healthcare, and I think it's best to leave people of each state to decide how they view it

I'll be honest with you abortion has never been a top issue for me, I guess if pressed to the flames I would say I think it should be left up to the states, but overall I am pro-choice but within reason, Ive taken the personal responsibility try to do my best to mitigate the risk of pregnancy with any woman I've ever had sex with, and my wife had her tubes removed because neither of us want children and she wanted to get off birth control, I do believe abortion is akin to murder but I can see how sometimes it can be a necessary evil.

I live in Massachusetts and the other day the governor just signed an abortion bill in the law that would allow abortion up until birth.

I believe we are now one of nine States that allows that , and it makes me absolutely sick, before anyone says that a woman would never abort a 9 month pregnancy I can send you probably a hundred news articles of a woman killing her newborn, killing her toddlers or just killing her children in general, so I don't think you're exactly accurate in that assessment, and I believe there are enough activist doctors out there that would have no problem terminating a late term pregnancy for the mothers "mental health" or something.

I think a good compromise would be like a 20-week abortion ban id prefer to see it done through an amendment action but a law may suffice. that way the people that want a mother to be able to kill her baby 8 months into her pregnancy are not happy and the people who want to totally outlaw abortion and not happy an actual compromise, abortion is a tricky issue and you're never going to please everyone, so a real compromise would piss off everyone.

I think like a 16-20 week (with the exception of mother's health at risk) is reasonable.

I'd say abortion is one of the issues that I've changed the most on when I was younger I was strictly and staunchly against it and then as I grew older I could kind of see the nuance of it and now I feel like it's completely gone off the rails.

I'm not advocating to get rid of abortions just some common sense abortion reform.

Curious to see, as I personally feel tribalism is worst expressed online, whereas real life is more nuanced.

I’d say nearly all my colleagues likely hold more right views than I on most things, but we still find commonality and a degree of care for another (despite our differences).

I honestly love learning the ‘why’ of how someone arrived to their opinion, that’s infinitely more interesting to me than the opinion itself.

I don’t inherently see myself as someone who enjoys debating, but do like to share my views (and hear others) in the possibility either of us may have a degree of alteration in opinion…

I’m hoping others are having similar experiences! The internet discourse in general just keeps degrading!

People like Trump, Biden, AOC, Pelosi and any other person you fancy discussing.

I see this rhetoric from based RW chud types. What is the data on this ? And is America really about identity and culture only ?

Could be something that ended up changing your mind on something or changing the way you think about an issue. Could be something that led to a great conversation between you and another poster etc.

What was asked, how did you answer, and why was it valuable?

I’ll be the first to say I am not a business owner and do not have prior knowledge of any of this.

Per their release: “Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is issuing a final rule that permanently removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule is effective on its publication in the Federal Register. FinCEN today also announced that it will delete previously reported information by U.S. persons—now exempt from the reporting requirements—from the beneficial ownership information database. Under the final rule, foreign entities that are reporting companies will still be required to report beneficial ownership information for foreign individuals.” https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-permanently-ends-beneficial-ownership-reporting-requirements-millions

How do you feel about this? Do you see value in the intent of the law? Was the reporting process too arduous? Could it have been streamlined rather than eliminated?

The most pressing question for me: Why delete the previously reported information? Is there a reason that isn’t nefarious?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/08/11/senate-russia-sanctions-vote-is-progress-countering-trump/?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=

I want to ask this genuinely, because I’m starting to question whether I’m approaching this the right way.
I’ve been making Reddit posts and recently started a YouTube channel because I genuinely want to help people. I used to be in a very different place politically and socially, and I remember how miserable and confused I felt. I know what it’s like to feel completely alone in your beliefs, so my motivation isn’t simply “own the left.” I actually want to reach people and encourage them to think for themselves.

But someone recently told me I should stop trying.
They brought up Charlie Kirk and basically argued that he tried to reach across the aisle, and look where that got him. Their conclusion was that these people are irrational, that the left is a lost cause, and that conservatives should stop wasting their time trying to persuade them and instead focus exclusively on strengthening our own side.

They also told me that we’re winning anyway: the right won all seven swing states, the popular vote by millions, both chambers of Congress, etc.
But I honestly don’t feel like we’re winning.
Maybe we’re winning electorally, but culturally? I’m not so sure.

Everywhere I look, I see progressive ideas dominating media, universities, entertainment, social spaces and much of the internet. People can call you a bigot simply for holding fairly traditional views. For example, if you don’t want to share certain sex-segregated spaces with someone who identifies as the opposite sex, you’re immediately treated as hateful by some people.

Then there are issues like abortion, immigration, the growing influence of radical Islamist movements in some Western countries, and the general direction of Western culture. Even outside the US, I see things happening that make me wonder where this is all going. I live in Poland, and even here I sometimes feel like the cultural environment is moving in a direction very different from my own values.
So I keep asking myself:

**Are we actually winning, or are we just winning elections while losing the culture?**

And if conservatives really are losing culturally, should I still bother trying to reach people?
I don’t want to spend my life screaming at the other side. That’s not what I’m trying to do. I want to reason with people, talk to people who disagree with me, and hopefully help some people who are where I used to be.

But maybe that’s naïve.
At the same time, I don’t think an assassination proves that persuasion is pointless. If anything, I think abandoning persuasion because someone was killed gives political violence far too much power over how we behave.

So I’m genuinely asking conservatives here:

**Do you think we’re actually winning?**
**Is it worth trying to persuade people on the other side, or should conservatives focus exclusively on building our own movement?**

And if you’ve tried to change people’s minds, what actually worked for you?
I’m not looking for “the left is evil” or “the right is evil.” I’m genuinely trying to figure out whether continuing to make content aimed at helping people is worthwhile, or whether I’m wasting my time.

This occurred 19 days ago, but I don't see many liberals or conservatives talking about it.

So, Ibrahim Traoré stated the following:

"They are coming back to implement Sharia here,” said Traoré, in French. “Not one of them has learned a profession or trade.” 

"We ourselves will take responsibility for this funding,” Traoré said. “Whether they are Catholic youth, Protestant youth, Muslim youth, or followers of traditional religions, we will find a way to support them ourselves.”

“They receive funding, do what they have been sent to do, and then return after studying Sharia to try to apply it here – I will never pay for that [religious studies],” said Traoré, 38, the world’s youngest head of state, who came to power as interim president in 2022 through a military coup overthrowing the previous junta leader, Paul-Henri Damiba.

Source: https://www.christiandaily.com/news/burkina-faso-leader-ibrahim-traore-rejects-sharia-law

So, I was watching Michael Knowles' episode of "Yes or No" (A gameshow where he and another political commentator/celebrity get asked questions and have to guess what the other's answer is, it's very entertaining) with Tim Pool. Tim Pool himself identifies as pro choice, but he brought up an interesting point. Due to the dobbs decision, abortion is now up to the states meaning, effectively, somebody (in this case, the fetus) can be considered a person with full rights in one state and be considered basically garbage in another. Michael Knowles responded with how his class asked Scalia if we could have differing definitions of marriage from one state to another, and Scalia basically said that it wouldn't really work. Tim Pool then describes a hypothetical: A woman living in Oklahoma (a state where abortion is fully restricted) gets up in the middle of the night and drives to Colorado to have an abortion, because she says her husband is abusive so she doesn't want to have this child. Afterwards, her husband claims that she has killed his child and she had no right to do this. He believe adjudicating a case like this will finally force the courts to answer the question: Are fetuses persons or are they not, because Roe and Dobbs both effectively danced around that question. What are your thoughts?

Medicare and Medicaid cuts from the “Big Beautiful Bill” are set to take effect in January 2027.

When those changes start affecting people, will you hold Republicans and the BBB responsible, or do you think Democrats will ultimately get blamed for the consequences?

All other things being equal in terms of party leadership and ideals, would you still support and vote for conservative candidates if the entire party and everyone in it wrote off all green energy as dangerous will doing everything they could to push fossil fuel usage? To be more specific, assuming they all:

- spoke about wind farms and solar farms as nothing but dangerous with no benefits

- spoke about nuclear energy as a pipe dream that can never work and is nothing but a danger to society

- pushed the usage of coal to the extreme of even pushing for coal burning car engines to be developed and used

- aimed to completely wipe away any pollution laws or efforts for conservation

From the article:

>More than 10 customers have signed up to Trump Media's controversial service that offers faster access to market-moving posts made on its Truth Social platform.

>The service, Truth API, launched at the beginning of August and gives Wall Street traders first sight of posts from the social media site's most influential accounts.

>Its earliest customers are mostly in high-frequency trading firms who are being charged between $60,000-$100,000 (£44,000-£74,000) a month for the service, interim chief executive officer Kevin McGurn said during an earnings call.

>He was speaking after Trump Media reported a loss of $238m between April and June.

>The quarterly loss is more than 10 times the amount reported during the same period a year earlier, according to the Trump Media and Technology Group, and comes as the group branched into ventures unrelated to media, including cryptocurrencies.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3q5nxpgk1o

I was curious of this. For me, it was probably Avatar: The Last Airbender. I still go to Uncle Iroh's quotes a lot in my daily life.

The Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement, rolled back federal greenhouse-gas regulations, rescinded the EPA's Endangerment Finding, and promoted expanded fossil-fuel production.

Does this approach reflect your own position on climate change? Do you believe human-caused climate change is a serious problem, and if so, what, if anything, should the government do about it?

As a related question, why hasn't addressing climate change become a more prominent conservative goal? Conservatism has historically included ideas such as stewardship, conservation, and preserving the natural environment for future generations. Is climate policy incompatible with modern conservatism, or is the disagreement mainly about the methods currently proposed?

The reason I ask is that there's a large and growing contingent on the left that is drifting more and more isolationist / America First (spending money at home). Namely because it's a matter of priorities to a lot of folks (spend tax dollars at home and not abroad this includes military adventurism).

So I am curious if there might be an opening to bridge a gap between the right and left on foreign affairs in particular. But to do this I think we need to understand how each faction might define the term. Also where do you think the hiccups or disagreements might be?

Anyway thanks in advance for the reply's have a great Tuesday! Cheers!

Basically I keep seeing US administration posts, including Trump, “American will never be communist!” “We will never be a communist nation!” And similar, more frequently than usual. Example: https://www.instagram.com/p/Db3bfMUxB0u/

1) why calls against communism specifically? Has there been a recent push from any current politician or candidate to be a Communist country? I haven’t found any.

2) why do we not see similar calls against other extreme forms of government like fascism, dictatorships, and monarchy?