Don Jr. is a partner at 1789 Capital, which invested in Vulcan Elements, a critical minerals company, in 2025. Three months after 1789 invested, Vulcan received a $620 million conditional Pentagon loan and $50 million in Commerce Department equity, along with other federal support.

1789 also invested in Hadrian, a defense manufacturing startup which recieved $900 million in contracts less than a year after 1789 invested in the company.

Eric Trump was (is? Not sure) a chief strategy adviser to Unusual Machines, a drone company in which his investment network had a stake. In 2025, while Eric was the company CSA, the company received a $24 million U.S. Department of Defense contract to supply drone components.

Out of the 15 companies the sons are affiliated with, 11 have active Pentagon contracts, totaling $3.2 billion. 5 of those companies got their contracts directly after investment from the Trump sons' firms.

Do conservatives find it problematic that the President's sons are so deeply involved in military defense companies that seem to be striking an endless pot of gold in Pentagon contracts?

There's a lot of gloom and doom I hear about the future of Europe and how we're almost an Islamic Caliphate and everybody's getting raped because of all the doctors and engineers and how the West has basically fallen.

Though there are genuine issues like slow growth and an ageing population I think there are also some good things going on. Like when the EU isn't trying to push through bullshit like Chat Control, they are working on some really great stuff like the 28th legal regime and generally deeper integration and even some deregulation in some areas and you also have governments backpeddling on immigration (except Spain of course because I think we've all seen that Spain likes to do its own thing).

So what's your outlook on Europe's future? Are our best days still ahead of us or will we continue to be in decline?

I think he's a disaster, and I think he's not really a conservative, at least not in the sense that we've understood that word to mean since after WWII. I'm curious to see how he's going to be received once he has to try and take the party reigns away from Trump.

Ok guys/gals.

This isnt asking: "should we enter into a ground war in Iran?"

This is asking:

"Is it going to happen?"

As the days slog on. And we drop more bombs on them than their whole militaries worth. Im not seeing another path here.

Ground invasion, install the Shahs grandson

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/isps-long-nightmare-of-having-to-list-all-the-fees-they-charge-is-finally-over/

Taylor Farms lobbied to delay the FDA's new Food Traceability Rule by 30 months, arguing the supply-chain tracking requirements were too costly and complex for businesses to implement.

Given that Taylor Farms is now linked to the ongoing Cyclospora outbreak, is this the kind of deregulation you generally support?

Do you view rolling back these tracking rules as a necessary win for business efficiency, or a step too far that risks public health oversight?

Zohran Mamdani, the democratically elected mayor of New York City, has a bit of controversy with right-wing politics. This is mainly due to his views of socialism and Israel, which many people on the left agree with.

But what do you think are some valid criticisms for him as mayor of New York City? Not just with his ideals, but his performance as mayor. What, in your opinion, is fair to say about him?

It had been my impression that the focus of Donald Trump‘s immigration efforts, on which he ran for the presidency, was to remove criminally violent immigrants who also did not enter the country legally and did not have a legal right to be here. Am I wrong in that understanding? If I am not wrong, are you speaking up against what is happening now? If I am wrong, why do you want non-violent forcibly be removed from the country?

For those who don’t know: The Byrd Rule is a Senate procedure that prevents non-budgetary policies from being added to budget reconciliation bills.

Obviously this reconciliation faces many hurdles in the Senate and that’s before they even start working on what the package will fully entail.

And personally I see no way to pass the parts of the Save Act like required ID through budget reconciliation making it lose its essence.

Even granting that some states provide a free voting ID, the SAVE Act itself does not appear to require states to issue a qualifying ID free of charge or cover the cost of supporting documents such as birth certificates or name-change records. It provides for free access to copying equipment in certain government buildings, but that is not the same as guaranteeing a cost-free path to obtaining the required documents.

Should a federal law imposing these requirements also guarantee that every eligible citizen can comply without paying for documents, replacements, transportation, or other necessary steps or are those costs an acceptable personal responsibility?

At what point does requiring someone to spend money solely to satisfy a voting prerequisite become functionally too close to paying for access to the ballot?

What do you think are the most significant questions of fact (as opposed to opinion or morality or priority or similar) where the left and the right have significant disagreement?

How could those disagreements be resolved through evidence?

I ask politely for good faith in your responses, i.e. let's not talk about straw man positions or fringe internet kooks but factual positions widely held by a substantial (say 1/3 or more sort of level) of left or right wingers.

Edit: fascinatingly almost none of the top level responses to this are what I would describe as disagreements of fact, they are all about moral frameworks. Perhaps this type-mismatch is part of the reason we talk past each other?

This thing bugged me from the start. "MAGA" is supposed to be about America First - not only "no more wars", but also "I don't care about other countries, no matter what their perception of us is".

First Trump rambled on about Canada. Then Trump rambled on and on about "Greenland" and so forth.

The "he's joking" doesn't fly, I think he has started a fantasy of global conquest. This is a pattern of behavior from him.
And obviously the Iran war. It's that same attitude that has motivated him in his 2nd term.

But that was the motivation he got from invading Venezuela (which is also another example of global conquest but it was actually serious).

Are people telling that in his ear ? Or is he really in to global conquest. Has any noticed his attitude change on this policy ?

Irrespective of what your opinion was on getting into this situation, what do you think we should do with Iran now?

Invasion? Status quo? Leave? Something else? If you were in charge, what would you do?

Context: News reports suggest CIA facilities targeted by Iran using Russian intelligence. I have no idea if those reports are accurate, nor related suspicions about how the Iranians are able to grow more effective at getting missiles through US defences and onto specific targets.

My question is, if Russia is staying out of the US/Iran fight would your views be different about the US contribution to the Ukraine/Russia fight than if Russia were giving similar contributions to Iran against US interests?

I guess another way to ask the question is, would you feel happier leaving Ukraine and Europe to face Russia alone if the Russians didn't interfere with the US in its actions in Iran?

(I know it's not a direct equivalence as Russia sees deception as a force-multiplier, whereas the West broadcasts the extent of the support provided to Ukraine to try and send signals to Russia.)

Like Im growing tired that My house, my car, my livilihood,my grocerires , my value and function in society, my entire ability to make ends meet and survive in the world. Is entirely depedent on the financial decisions of people who dont know me or care about me.

Like its genuienely surreal. My salary, my mortgage, my investments ,my very existence and ticket to be in this society. Is entirely based upon the notion that someone buys my labor.

Through no fault of my own, i could loose my career tomorrow. And society would toss me away.

“The President on 30+ separate occasions told the American people that the war with Iran was over, and yet you come here to ask for $87 billion with $67 billion going to the Pentagon and ongoing conflict operations. So the question is this, have we won the war giving your emergency request for 87 billion no basis or did the President lie to the American people 30+ different times?”

Now this hypothetical question would most likely be asked by democratic senator, but it begs the question: is it fair to ask this?

Where do you want to be? When you voted in 2024, what were your aspirations for the next 4 years? Have the last one and a half years been what you expected

Title. I am a big comics enjoyer. If you read comics, which are your favorites?

Here's my list, in no particular order, and I'm sure I'll leave some of my favorites out:

The Long Halloween
Batman Year One
Watchmen
The Dark Knight Returns
Lazarus (ongoing)
The Wicked and the Divine
The Walking Dead
The Power Fantasy (ongoing)

What are yours? If you're reading an ongoing series, which ones?

Saudi Arabia assisted in 9/11 and the killed A Saudi journalist.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-saudi-arabia-nuclear-program-uranium-6bb82164c890a7dc335cbfc2c628a3da

Correction: Saudi Journalist ordered by the crown prince.

I get that the US does have influence on other countries somewhat, but why is that sending people all around the world into this doomer mindset?

Like obviously emotions were high when he was first elected, but it seems over time they keep talking about how the world is only getting worse just because to them it might seem like it?