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)

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?

If we look at other Speakers of the House, they had a better ability to be able to pass criticial bipartisan legislation through narrow majorities and actually make deals, and were able to make solid comments to the press regarding what congress was up to or about something the president did whether you agreed with it or not.

I feel like we just havent seen that with Mike johnson where congress has passed a historic low of bills under his leadership and he always seems to struggle to negotiate to get critical bills through narrow majorities when previous speakers have been able to with the same odds.

And he always seems unprepared or unwilling to answer questions from the press by saying things like "I havent seen that" or "I dont know what youre talking about" almost like hes afraid to address anything negative within the party at all instead of trying to spin it positvely.

I dont know who would've been a better choice for republicans to pick though. Certainly not jim Jordan. What are yalls thoughts?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/03/elise-stefanik-house-speaker-mike-johnson-trump/87590314007/

Relevant Context

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/cp-newsalert-u-drop-tariffs-185903896.html

However, the same executive order will also impose new tariffs on dozens of new categories as cocoa powder, paints and varnishes, shampoos, vinyl flooring, archery equipment and carpets. It also will apply 50 per cent tariffs on sewage sludge, and some municipal waste.

With regards to waste these are Canadian municipalities and companies paying American waste providers to take their waste and dispose of it. Won't this hurt American waste providers and remove some of their best customers?

For the 2024 election, it was illegal immigration, inflation/costs of living rising, Biden's mental state and abortion.

What would you say are the biggest issues your average voter will be considering for the midterms?

Seems like a pretty crazy win since he was polling somewhat poorly

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.

Georgism believes that “persons should own the value that they produce themselves, while the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society.”

The main policy proposal is a land-value tax, which taxes the value of the land separately from everything on top of it.

This country has A LOT it can work on, and yet 2a issues seem to dominate much of the right's top priorities. Why? I get why people want to own guns, I do, but why is it more important than say, Healthcare? Or environmental regulation?

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

In the case of the Alaska election lawsuit brought by the DOJ, the prosecution would have to prove that people "accidentally" voted for the wrong Dan Sullivan. How would they do that, given there is no way for them to identify who voted for which candidate?

Follow-up: If the answer is "ask the voters and make corrections," does that mean you are ok with voters being allowed to change their votes after finding out the results of an election?

I'm asking in good faith to try to understand the legal argument, if one exists.

EDIT:

Since people keep replying with the same (false) claim that there is a record of which candidates a person has voted for in the past, here are a bunch of sources proving that claim wrong. There is a record of who has voted in the past but not who they voted for. This is indisputable.

Why can't I find a history of who I voted for in past elections?

Can someone find out who I voted for?

Can someone find out who you voted for? No.

Who Can Access My Voting Information?

Know Your Voter Rights!

Voter Roll Confidentiality

Although it MIGHT have been proper to flair this under "Philosophy", a "Law and the Courts" does bring to mind the Cold Reality that "The Law" has a more limited conception of "Rights" than most Negative Rights based frameworks and religions, etc.

Modern people, but particularly the Center-Left and hard-Left, seem to confuse rights with entitlements, as do some religious teachings , I think.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/

I'm curious about how people's individual views span the spectrum. For context, I hold strong right-leaning views on issues like immigration, but I'm also supportive of gay male rights and men's issues, so my perspective is a mix of different ideas.

​Where do you land on your personal spectrum? What is one issue where you hold a strictly conservative stance, and one where your view is non-traditional, liberal, or progressive?

Conservatives, I keep seeing the argument that the UK and EU are "openly opposing" Trump's peace efforts, and that Zelensky is being used to undermine negotiations.

After the Diesel deal, Zelensky went to UK. He met with King Charles III at Buckingham Palace and thanked him for the UK's "unwavering support" . He also met with PM Burnham, who said the UK would accelerate delivery of air defense missiles and go "further and faster" in its support. (source - https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-polytics/4174463-president-zelensky-meets-king-charles-iii.html )

Then he went on Piers Morgan Uncensored and said directly what he had been hinting at. Asked if he felt betrayed by Trump, Zelensky said: "Really, yes ... but it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings" . He said "it's painful when President Trump chooses one side, not our side," and added: "It's a pity we are losing a strong partner" ( source - https://www.reuters.com/5f374b32b07b/world/us/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-it-is-painful-trump-choose-different-side-2026-10-14/ )

He also said Trump's advisers were pushing him "to the wrong side," and that "this is not the right side of history" .

Is this Zelensky "picking public fights"? Or is he a leader watching the US lift sanctions on Russian diesel, and suggest Ukraine needs a "new president" - and then saying so on camera when asked directly?

The UK visit itself was not a campaign against Trump. Burnham explicitly positioned Britain as more reliable than Washington, saying "we are with you for as long as it takes".
Zelensky didn't have to attack Trump to get that. He just had to show up.

If you believe that, can you please explain you reasoning? And if you thing she should still hold office and have a say, why do you believe that?

Will Democrats take control of both houses of Congress or just the lower house?

A few state races have been in the news lately, particularly Ramaswamy vs Acton. The Texas governor’s race may be heating up as well.

How optimistic or pessimistic are you about conservatives’ chances?

how important for you is that the men lead in terms of financial responsibility in marriage? is that tradition still present heavily or it changed in recent years?

if i work myself and my husband as well, would it be still common that i refer to him for major financial decisions rather being it 50/50? would i be expected not to work at all? and in general what would be the major differences related to finances when compared to a liberal household?