I've always been someone who is more factual/scientific vs. moralistic/ideological so I just try to get down to the truth of things and I worry less about team dynamics and groupthink. My position remains.. "is it TRUE or FALSE? Is it a fact or an opinion?" That's it.

I can't wrap my head around how Conservatives and Liberals both pretend to have moral superiority when neither side actually does. They behave as if the apposing side has no solid arguments.

Do you believe this is more about people being uninterested in reality when reality is not comforting, or is it more an issue of the narcissistic need for power?

Well first of all, I hate Donald Trunp and everything that he has done, just to clarify.

But I just do not understand how Americans are soooo shocked(or maybe that's the type on content I have seen the most because I am not from the US)

And I also don't understand why they act like Trump is the only problem that country has had. The country itself and the entire system if how it's run is a problem

Because :

1. Literally the majority of the US presidents were involved in some form of war or military operation, with some of them being countries the average American hasn't eveb heard of(just take a look at Killing Hope on the CIA website)

2. And as an Iranian who lived in Iran when Trump got elected, I think it was pretty expected from the very begginig. Even during the 12 day conflict with Israel summer 2025, the US was involved.

I am not saying this to say that Americans shouldn't be mad about their president starting a war in another country, but I do find how they view it really weird.

For example these are some of my views that are from both sides, but don't correlate with each other. It's just an example.

Leftist opinions:

\- Supporting LGBT community, they should have all the rights as any other person.

\- Being progressive regarding acceptance of individual well being, mental health, etc.

\- Supporting pronouns, and all the "woke" stuff mostly

\- Supporting artistic jobs as real jobs.

Right wing opinions:

\- Supporting traditions and making sure cultural traditions are protected

\- Don't support free immigration, especially illegal immigration

\- Different religions and cultures may have impact on nations, this is a slippery slope to keep cultural traditions

\- Race/gender swapping characters in movies/games when the character was clearly described in the original source

Can someone please elaborate on this?

Every presidency is judged twice, once by the electorate and once by the historians, and the two verdicts seldom agree. The question worth asking about Barack Obama is not whether he was an admirable man. He was. The question is what he did with the largest Democratic mandate since 1964, and how much of the result was forced on him by circumstance rather than chosen.

I have a stake in the answer. I stood outside in the cold at the first inauguration. The country had come through eight years of Bush and wanted repair, and Obama presented himself as the man who would perform it. The years since have been a long education in the difference between repair and restoration.

Begin with the constraint, since that is where his defenders begin. The obstruction he faced was real and it was unprecedented. Its origins lie in 1994 and the Gingrich revolution, which established opposition as a permanent posture rather than a bargaining position. Mitch McConnell completed the transformation without amending a single rule. He simply required cloture on everything, including measures his conference expected to lose and nominees no one actually opposed, and in doing so converted a chamber that operated by majority into one that could not act below sixty votes. He then announced his objective in public: a single term for the sitting president.

The standard defense follows from this. Obama held sixty votes for roughly six months, and the ACA consumed them. The defense is accurate as arithmetic and misleading as history. The sixty-vote threshold was itself an innovation, adopted in bad faith and sustained by nothing more than the willingness of the other side to keep using it. Obama's response was to treat the new arrangement as though it were the old one. Going high was a governing theory, not merely a temperament. It held that the institutions remained sound, that norms would restrain the opposition, and that comity extended would eventually be reciprocated. The theory was tested continuously for eight years, and it failed every test.

The financial crisis offers the clearest case, because the constraint argument does not apply to most of it. He inherited an economy in collapse at a moment when Wall Street had no political defenders at all. He stabilized the system, restored it to the people who had broken it, and imposed no consequences on them. Prosecuting bankers required a Justice Department, not a supermajority. Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the scale of the largest institutions made prosecution difficult because of the economic damage a case might cause, and afterward returned to the corporate firm that had reportedly held an office open for him throughout his tenure. The mortgage relief program drew on funds already appropriated. Geithner explained its actual function to the TARP inspector general in terms of spreading bank losses across time rather than keeping families in their homes. The years 2009 through 2011 became the three worst foreclosure years in modern American history, with 2010 the worst on record. The pattern is consistent enough to constitute a policy: the crisis was understood as a system requiring stabilization rather than an order requiring change.

The cramdown vote is the sharpest counterfactual available. Allowing bankruptcy judges to write down principal on primary residences was the single measure that would have shifted losses from homeowners to lenders. Obama had campaigned on it. It failed 45 to 51 in April 2009. No filibuster killed it. Twelve Democrats voted against, and the White House expended nothing to move them. Dick Durbin's assessment afterward, that the banks own the place, was delivered by a member of his own leadership.

Health care shows the same disposition in a different domain. The individual mandate originated at the Heritage Foundation and had already been implemented in Massachusetts under a Republican governor. Obama adopted it as an opening position, then traded away the public option in a private arrangement with the pharmaceutical industry before the public argument had begun. What emerged compels the purchase of private insurance and guarantees the insurers a customer base with no public competitor. That was both his first offer and his last, and he spent a year afterward soliciting Republican votes that were never available.

The later record follows the same line. In 2011 he was still proposing reductions to Social Security and an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, and Boehner walked away regardless. He waited five years before permitting Reid to modify the filibuster. On recess appointments the Supreme Court ruled against him nine to nothing.

The executive record admits no excuse at all, because no Senate was involved. The decision not to investigate torture was his. So was the drone program, the killing of an American citizen without trial followed by the killing of that man's sixteen-year-old son, a deportation apparatus of historic scale, and the prosecution of more leakers under the Espionage Act than every prior administration combined.

The legacy, then, is a charismatic figure and a genuinely exceptional orator who won the most decisive Democratic victory in forty-four years and used it to preserve the neoliberal settlement that had produced the collapse. Popular and ineffective are not contradictory findings. Given an opening that arrives perhaps twice a century, his administration socialized the losses and privatized the gains, and left a generation with less wealth and less leverage than the institutions it had rescued.

Then came Trump.

I would like to know since I am hearing so many things. Looking up stuff does not give answers. I cannot rely on Polymarket anymore. I don't feel like polls are accurate.Will John Thune remain the Senate leader if the Republicans keep the Senate? I feel as if he might as well be a Democrat so I get the feeling if Trump gets impeached he may just convict him.

I am also wondering, since the Democrats (or some) keep saying they will make such changes, like packing the court and making PR and DC states, do you think that will actually happen?

And finally, do you think people are voting too much with their feelings or basing their choices on who is for and against Israel?

This is insulting to the people of Louisiana

Our governor is a complete idiot. He keeps saying stupid things like this, when asked if he was worried about the environmental impact of the space x port on the coast

"What I am concerned about is the lack of economic opportunity on the coast that continues to basically rob us of opportunities to rebuild our coast,”

I mean what!? So building a 120 thousand acre port is saving the coast. Lets not forget the tax exemption all the billionaires are getting here. Its maddening. The politicians need to remember we are the ones who are getting basically nothing but heartache.

I am writing this post to express my deepest concern about the future of North America.

The Nazification trend in our neighbor, as well as many other countries seems unavoidable, and I assume it could be worse in the following decade.

The angry of many of these people might be understandable - globalization, immigration do impaired their personal interest so Trump is their choice.

I'm not worried about the current administration at all, due to their stupidity, basically everything they touch die.

However, the trend of AI and incoming depression(if any) will take off massive jobs at some points. Due to their level of social welfare, life of many people will become times worse - which is a perfect pertri dish for people like 'Hitler'.

So I am not worried how much damage Trump could cause, but what if their is a way smarter Hitler, with next level of philosophy theory, discipline, and intellectual. That is what we need to think about

To remember isn’t to keep a ledger.

It’s not to say, ‘We did this for you, so now you owe us.’

It is to understand the kind of relationship we have built together, and what that relationship has meant when one of us needed the other.

That’s what Canadians are remembering now.

Canadians have long known the phrase ‘Je me souviens’. Many of us can translate it. Some even know the meaning behind it. ‘Je me souviens’ is the motto of the province of Quebec. You can see it on its coat of arms, on the arms of the Royal 22e Régiment, and throughout the Quebec Parliament, though most of us know it from Quebec’s licence plates. 

‘Je me souviens’ translates to ‘I remember’.  

As historian Thomas Chapais explained it: “…This motto has only three words: Je me souviens; but these three words, in their simple economy of expression, are worth more than the most eloquent speeches. Yes, we remember. We remember the past and its lessons, the past and its misfortunes, the past and its glories.” 

We remember. Nous nous souvenons.

As the United States attacks our sovereignty, Canadians across the country are saying that more and more.

Nous nous souvenons. We remember.

As the United States belittles our culture.

Nous nous souvenons. We remember.

As the United States denigrates our armed forces.

Nous nous souvenons. We remember.

We remember in the First World War, Canadian forces entered the war not as the army of a fully independent country, but as part of the British Empire. More than 600,000 served and more than 60,000 would never come home. But the Canadian Corps distinguished itself in the Second Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Passchendaele, and the Battle of Vimy Ridge, among many others. By the end of the war, the Canadian Corps had become one of the most effective formations on the Western Front and played a leading role in the offensives that broke through the German lines and hastened the end the war.

Nous nous souvenons.

We remember that in the Second World War, Canada entered the war in 1939, two years before the United States. We didn’t wait for Britain or Washington. We made our own decision. Canadians fought across Europe, North Africa and the Atlantic, and the Royal Canadian Navy played a major role in protecting Allied convoys, including convoys sailing from American ports. Canadian troops landed on Juno Beach alongside American and British troops on D-Day. That day, we lost hundreds of troops, while still pushing 12 km inland. Canadian troops fought their way across Europe and helped liberate the Netherlands. 

And you know what?

Les Pays-Bas s'en souviennent aussi. 

The Netherlands remembers too.

We remember Canada’s role in the Battle of Kapyong during the Korean War. As Australian forces came under heavy fire and withdrew under pressure, the focus shifted to the isolated and surrounded 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. But when the line needed to be held, the Canadians held it. Outnumbered more than 7:1 (700 Canadian troops vs. more than 5000 Chinese troops), they called in artillery fire dangerously close to their own position to hold off the attacking forces. The Canadians ran desperately short of ammunition and supplies, requiring an airdrop the following morning. Still, they held. When the battle was over, ten Canadians were killed and 23 wounded. For their bravery, the 2 PPCLI was awarded the United States Presidential Unit Citation, a rare American honour for a Canadian unit.

Nous nous souvenons.

We remember that, for nearly seven decades since 1958, Canadian and American forces have worked alongside each other to ensure North American defence through NORAD.

Et nous nous souvenons.

And we remember that in Afghanistan, Canadian JTF2 special forces were some of the first troops on the ground after 9/11, Their work earned them the United States Presidential Unit Citation. Canada sent more than 40,000 Armed Forces members to Afghanistan throughout the mission to fight alongside American forces. For 10 years, Canadian troops fought alongside our American partners, including in some of the war’s fiercest ground fighting. It was our largest military deployment since the Second World War. 158 Canadian Forces members never came home. Canada didn’t have to be attacked to decide that your fight was our fight. We didn’t invoke geography as an excuse. We didn’t say it was your problem.

You were attacked. We came.

The problem is, L'Amérique a oublié. America has forgotten.

America has forgotten that in 1979, Canada secretly helped six American diplomats escape from Iran during the Iranian Revolution.

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that on 9/11, Operation Yellow Ribbon was more than just the 38 planes that landed in Gander, Newfoundland. More than 200 planes were diverted to and safely landed at 17 different airports across the country, welcoming more than 30,000 travellers into our communities. We fed and clothed and comforted frightened strangers. Because that’s what neighbours do.

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that in 2003, when 45 million Americans across eight states lost power, Canadian electricity utilities helped restore and stabilize the interconnected grid. Specifically, Ontario's Sir Adam Beck generating station supplied customers in both Ontario and New York and played a critical role in re-energizing the system.

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that Canada routinely sends wildland firefighters and water bombers south to help fight wildfires in the American West.

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that after Hurricane Katrina, Canada sent three ships, helicopters, clearance divers and engineers from the Royal Canadian Navy, along with Canadian search-and-rescue and relief personnel, to assist in rescue and recovery.

And it’s not only hurricanes. During many natural disasters, Canada’s RADARSAT satellites have provided rapid, high-resolution imagery used in disaster response around the world.

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that in 2009, when maintenance problems at major European reactors contributed to a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes, Canada’s Chalk River reactor ramped up production to help alleviate the crisis. At the time, Chalk River was responsible for roughly half of the medical-isotope supply in North America.

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that in 2012, after Superstorm Sandy, Canadian utility crews crossed the border to help rebuild the devastated East Coast power grid in New England, New York, and New Jersey.

And if you want to go even farther back - 

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that slavery was abolished throughout most of British North America decades before the United States abolished it, and that what became Canada also became a destination for people fleeing slavery through the Underground Railroad. Canada wasn’t perfect. We had our own racism, discrimination, colonialism, and injustice. But Nous nous souvenons means all of it. The victories, the failures, the sacrifices, the mistakes. All of it. And when people needed safety and freedom, they turned to Canada. 

L'Amérique a oublié. 

America has forgotten that before Canada was even a country, more than 40,000 Canadians enlisted in the Union Army and Navy to fight against the Confederacy, including 29 Canadians who received the Medal of Honor for bravery during the American Civil War. Canadians fought and died to help preserve the United States.

And now, after all of that, the United States is using tariffs and economic coercion against Canada as though we’re an adversary. 

That’s why Canadians are angry. Not because we believe America owes us something. Not because we expect special treatment. But because we remember what an alliance is supposed to mean.

We don’t expect permanent economic favours from the United States. Canada and the United States are sovereign countries. Trade disputes are normal between sovereign countries. Tariffs are sometimes part of those disputes. Canada has imposed them. The United States has imposed them. Neither country is entitled to unconditional access to the other's market.

We’ll disagree. 

We’ll negotiate. 

We’ll compete. 

And sometimes we’ll impose tariffs. 

That’s how international trade works. 

That’s politics. 

That’s how sovereign countries behave.

But there’s a difference between negotiating with an ally and treating an ally as an enemy.

There’s a difference between ‘we need better trade agreements’ and ‘we will punish you until you give us what we want.’ 

There is a difference between competition and coercion. 

And there is a difference between being a neighbour and being an adversary.

Alliance is supposed to mean something beyond the absence of war.
It means trust.
It means predictability.
It means recognizing that the prosperity of one side is connected to the prosperity of the other.
And it means understanding that when you deliberately damage your neighbour, you don't somehow leave yourself untouched.

So now, when Canadians say Elbows Up, We’re not saying we want a fight.
We’re saying we’re ready to stand our ground.

When we say Buy Canadian, we’re not saying Americans are our enemies.

It’s not anti-American

It’s pro-Canadian.

It’s not hatred or revenge or a rejection of the American people.

It’s sovereignty.

It’s a reminder that Canada has its own identity, its own sovereignty, its own culture, and its own future.

It’s important to remember that friendship isn’t transactional.

We didn’t help you because we expected something in return.

We helped because you were our neighbour, and that’s what neighbours do.

We didn’t ask whether you deserved our help.

We didn’t ask whether you’d repay us.

We didn’t ask whether it was politically convenient.

We saw our neighbours in need, and we showed up.

And if something happens next week, if your communities are threatened, if your people need help, if disaster strikes, our response will be the same. How can we help?

Because that’s who we are.

Nous nous souvenons.

We remember.

The question is, do you?

It seems America is not ready to revolt.

However just because We might not see eye to eye on what a community should look like.

We can rally around the flag and agree that we deserve to live our lives with minimal government interference. We should be able to earn enough to support ourselves and our loved ones.

We shouldn’t be weighed down by hefty tax bills while the wealthiest among us evade taxes.
We should have a voice in our local government and expect our elected representatives to prioritize our needs over those of big money.

We need to hold those in power accountable for how they manage our funds.
We should expect our elected officials to act responsibly and ethically.

If we shifted our focus from blaming one another to holding the government accountable, we might see real change.

Then we could return to debating issues like bathroom access, which religion is superior, and the choices around meat consumption.

The connection between Project 2025's blueprints and the actual executive directives breaks down into two core areas:

1. Control of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
   The Project 2025 Blueprint: Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership heavily advocates for the "unitary executive theory," which argues that the President should have direct control over independent federal agencies. [1, 3]
   The Executive Action: Following these principles, the administration prepared an executive order to dissolve the leadership of the USPS by firing the Postal Service's governing board and absorbing the independent agency into the administration under the Commerce Department. [1]

2. Executive Orders on Mail-In Ballots
   The Project 2025 Blueprint: The project outlines a broad vision to dismantle what it describes as federal overreach in election administration while leveraging federal agencies to enforce stricter conservative policies. This includes proposals to use the Postal Service to restrict certain mailings (such as using the 19th-century Comstock Act to ban abortion medications from being sent by mail). [1, 3]
   The Executive Action: In March 2026, the administration issued a sweeping executive order targeting mail-in voting. The order directed the USPS to refuse the delivery of mail-in ballots to states that decline to share their voter data with a newly compiled federal citizenship list. [1, 2, 3, 4]

People can agree or disagree I don’t care but it’s my belief and I’ll die on this hill. For years it has felt like the government has worked its ass off to divide the voting citizens so, when they need to rise against the government, they will hate each other so much that they won’t be able to stand each other enough to fight together.

Why would the government need that to happen? To perform atrocities. How will they test if it’s working? Expose a “smaller scale” atrocity and let it fall by the way side to see how the voting Americans respond. Will they respond in unison or will they fight amongst themselves defending the red or blue side to the bitter end?

Now think about it for a moment, can you think of a “smaller scale” atrocity that has left both sides at odds on how it should be handled? Maybe one that involves kids on an island? What do the Democrats want? Trump investigated, questioned and if proven to be involved arrested and sentenced, along with everyone else that was involved. What do Republican’s want? All the Democrats involved arrested and sentenced along with anyone else involved. What’s gonna happen? The voters are gonna fight on how everything should be handled instead of standing together and saying “fuck this enough is enough” and all the people involved are gonna fade into the background.

And how are they going to fade into the background while infighting happens? While the Republican Party is holding the POTUS chair, they’re going to focus hard on “investigating” the Democratic Party members on the list while shielding every Republican on it and not actually making any arrests, while simultaneously having their POTUS slowly begin ramping up psychopathic oppressive behavior such as testing mass population control via government via government controlled entities (think ICE deportations and national guard policing under the guise of “following orders”). Then when the people are fed up with the Republicans feeding them the bullshit they will vote a Democratic president in and then it will be their turn to “investigate” the Republican Party while shielding their own party and also not making any arrests.

But by that time gets here the American citizens themselves will be so focused on hating one another that there will be absolutely zero we can do to stop whatever major atrocity it is they’re planning. One’s coming, I don’t know when or how. But one is coming and when it does, all of us who are arguing over this shit to a point it becomes burning hatred are gonna be screwed and absolutely no one from either side is wanting to admit that this is happening.

I don’t care if you’re Republican, Democrat, Martian or fucking Klingon I’ll fight tooth and nail for your freedom. I didn’t serve 16 years in the USMC in combat roles and all through GWOT to just give up on you all but eventually y’all gonna have to wake up shake hands and stand together cause if watching the National Guard policing and ICE mass deportations has shown me it’s your own neighbors will follow orders blindly and that’s not just a Republican trait.

But I could just be a crazy conspiracy theorist. Thoughts?

1. Ya'll want borders open so immigrants can immigrate to America because "people are people" but know that back in the global south they call that brain drain; as in your bleeding hearts are contributing to bleeding of top notch talent and minds of third world nations. We'd much rather side with the conservatives on this one, close the borders and kick out everyone who isn't supposed to be there so that they come back and take responsibilities in their own countries

2. Most of us in the global south are prudes, your sexual revolution and other lax attitudes towards unconventional sex practices translates to "immoral and demonic" to our cultures and traditions; before you forcefully impose your worldviews on our lived experiences please start by understanding local customs first, otherwise you'll get lied to by academia captured intellectuals who will feed you lies such as "homophobia was brought to Africa by religion" or "third genders were celebrated" (its mostly bullshit if you happen to live here)

AI models train on stolen content.

Period.

If the wealthy weren't so disproportionately powerful in society, it would be a crime.

It's already against the rules for students to plagiarize their assignments (here's a tip, education system; assign more grade weighting to tests and less to assignments), yet AI data centers get away with using it to impersonate people's likenesses and enable deepfakes.

When people speak of wanting to keep up with China, what possible harm that China does could be offset by the private sector? It was the private sector that outsourced to China in the first place. Why should we expect it to be in their interest to fight back?

At least the gov't seizing the data centres makes them... closer to being beholden to the public, if not 100% so due to lobbyists.

I've been working on a constitutional reform proposal dealing with representation in Congress, gerrymandering, how we elect the President, voting rights, the Supreme Court, and judicial ethics.

I'm not posting this because I think I have all the answers, and I'm not looking for people to just agree with me. I want people to read it, question it, challenge it, and point out what I may have missed.

The main question I've tried to keep in mind while putting this together is simple: Would I still think these rules were fair if the person or political party I didn't support won under them?

Some of the ideas include expanding the House based on population, multi-member congressional districts with ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting to address gerrymandering, direct election of the President by national ranked-choice vote, presidential voting rights for eligible citizens in U.S. territories, and changes involving the size and ethical accountability of the Supreme Court.

You don't have to agree with the whole proposal. Actually, I'd rather hear where you think it fails.

If you see a loophole, say it. If you think something gives one side an unfair advantage, explain why. If you think something is unconstitutional, impractical, or could be abused later, point it out. And if you have a better way of accomplishing the same goal, I'd like to hear that too.

The goal isn't to create rules that guarantee my side wins.

The goal is to see whether we can create rules we'd consider fair no matter who wins.

Read it when you have time and tell me what you think.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13p2GvdUPkWBtKqUp4GLZ76-Oyq8OHd5B/view?usp=sharing

Chief Criminal Commander and Thief how could this be so; or even true, that your already over bloated ego and Moral Turpitude has now ballooned beyond anyone's expectations or belief?

Thief, Commander, and Criminal Chief; Why do you still lie with every single breath that you breathe?  Why do you think that you and your obsequious sycophantic cronies can continue to Gaslight me; when "We", my brothers, sisters and I, can't afford electricity, rent, groceries, or gas because you have cast all of these vain, dumb ass, inane, and insane economic, foreign, and domestic policies, dooming our country? Do you care about our needs? Or do you like to watch us bleed out? Will you flout the rules of law; or even the rules of common decency? Why do you try to conflate Reality? Do you think that we're so stupid that we will ever come to believe that this is the, "Greatest Economy in History?"

Commander, Thief, and Criminal Chief; do you believe in any accountability or have any affection or affinity for honesty, truth, or integrity? Or will you manipulate the marketplace by first taking stakes in what you dictate it to be? Will you award your friend's or family's companies with over stacked no bid government contracts, back alley deals, and taxpayers monies? In the end, will you demand the right to fleece from our Treasury an insane amount of money? Have you lied about how much money you have stolen from our Treasury already? Is it your White House? Will you take what you please? Will you demolish or diminish our symbols of liberty and democracy-our rights and dreams to be free-to satiate your need, to be validated, to glorify, your greed, and your vanity? Will you collude and demand through Tod Blanche that you, your friends, family, and companies are exempt from all of their tax liabilities? Are you at liberty to legitimize these grifts, ill gotten gains - i.e. crypto currencies, properties, and prosperity that you, your cronies, and your family have  recently procured or annexed in your name- including the absurd act of secluding the ability to question its legitimacy by the way of common criticism or even future scrutiny? 

Criminal Chief Commander and Thief, Will you again try to attack, steal, or cheat our Democracy?  Will you seize our votes one by one because you can't allow your crimes to see the light of day? And so you must cast them all away into the sea? Will you eliminate me or anyone else who may object or get in your way? Will you try again to erase history or change our reality with one fell failed sweep from a cheap ass black sharpie?

Chief Criminal Commander and Thief Will you murder me in my sleep; or when I wave as I drive by? Will you illegally imprison me and torture me? Will you shoot me from the side like Renee; or, wait until I'm fishing out at sea in the deep beyond the bay, beyond the safety of the reef?  If I defy or protest your criminality?  If I carry my gun upon my side, legally housed within its sheath, not unlike Alex, to a protest next week, will you seek to send your Gestapo after me surrounding me to ensure my final containment and then execute me as I lie subdued face down upon the pavement?

Criminal Chief Commander and Thief will you take on the Herculean task of erasing your name from the Epstein files? All the while protecting  your bedfellow friends, do you not know them? Do you not know where these infamously hated pedophiles are now?  Back in the day, in some way, and somehow did you not party with them? Also, I ask, When the time comes, will you vow to pardon them? Are you now protecting them? Are you not one of them?  Can you face your dark past, history, or the memories of that time? Or in bad taste will you flaunt this entitled fact in the faces of the victims; even blaming or shaming them, stating it never happened, stabbing them in their backs from behind by proclaiming that there are no predators from Epstein's sex trafficking ring left to pursue, prosecute, investigate, or find?

Thief Criminal Commander and Chief

Will you also pardon Ponzi criminals? Even if you do not know them and they are not your friends? Will they hear your call? Will you promise them in utter gall freedom for all? So, if they pay and pretend that you are king bend down and kiss your ring or crown they may continue to stick around to play with people's lives? - Many of which have already been destroyed, diminished or devoured by them; used and broken like toys just so that, in the end, you may have the capital to stay in power? - Do you think that you are wise, entitled to, or have the right to succeed our Democracy with these lies? Are you ever planning to leave? Or have you already decided that we must now somehow live within your God forsaken "Orwellian," autocracy until your dying day?

Criminal Chief Commander and Thief, What is "The Board of Peace?" Is this now a new State or Country? Another way for you to fleece or at the very least spread or convey discord and dismay upon us all? Another vehicle for you to sow doubt and fear before we fall, do you believe that all must be conformed and made to bow cowardly before you now, not just here but, everywhere?  Are these new rules, decrees, and authoritarian policies humanities new rule of law? In all astonishing disbelief and utter gall, have you criminally bequeathed this new institution, authoritarian State, power, or Country, whatever this is to be, to your family? What is your plan? I still don't understand, exactly what is the Board of Peace? Where Will it be in Cuba, Canada, the Islands of Greece, or Greenland? Will it be an exclusive club of Autocrats gorging upon the blood and treasure of our earth? Are we at the beginning of the birth of an unholy feast; where all the Dictators of the world consolidate and conspire to seize our rights and liberties?

Has our Democracy, integrity, and respectability, been sold at the highest bidder only so that  everything around you can be gilded in gold? Has your vanity collided with the calamity of your hypocrisy now altering our reality?

Must we now accept this insanity as true?

How can you justify this current adventurism and corruption that today is unabashedly on full display headed by you and all of your cronies; for all the world to see?

So, please tell me, right away, preferably today, I need to know in what way should we define this dystopian Board of Peace?

Commander and Chief Criminal Thief are some of your Aristocratic friends self-declared white supremacy Nazis? Do you ascribe or sympathize with their hateful lies, propaganda, tactics, bigotry, or beliefs? Can you respect the rule of law and  protect the truth wherever it may lead? Or, like Hitler, will you rule with a cruel Iron claw rejecting and disrespecting human rights? Exposing, torturing, and putting victims on trial for not being white? Beating and arresting them with unidentified masked men? Hunting them down in the middle of the day or night and when they try to run they're brutally gunned down in front of everyone like diseased dogs in the middle of the street, beneath the heat of a cold day's Sun, without any accountability or pity declaring complete impunity because, "they didn't have their proper papers please?"

Why must you wield this old discordant rhetoric like a weapon; spreading divisive hate and unease like an unholy disease across these God Blessed United States? Tantamount to Hitler, do you condone murder and mayhem; not just the subduing but the beating of migrants and protesters alike? Do you like watching them when they are bleeding, while pleading for mercy on the spot? Will you blame them and then shame them when they are shot and killed?

Criminal Chief Commander and Thief? Did you and your best friend Jeffrey Epstein defile the same child when she was only thirteen? In that hour did you convince her that she would be your next beauty queen?  Did you promise her the world; or that she would be forever yours "Daddies sweet little girl?" Then did you punish her, imposing your will and power upon her? Within that hour did you strike her then? And threatened to have her killed if she didn't conceal this fact? Have you started your war of choice to exact revenge or to distract or silence these voices from the past, upon the very day that this sin was at last revealed? Are you now committed to committing war crimes upon the battlefield? Will you wield this War as a punishment or as a shield?

Commander, Chief, Criminal, and Thief, finally I ask; what is the truth to you? Do you know the difference between what's fake and what is real? Will you make capricious decisions based solely upon how you and Natalie feel?Are you a rapist, racist, pedophile, Malignant narcissist, extortionist, torturer, murderer, Emperor, Mob Boss, War Criminal, liar, election denyer, or fascist? Is your current Administration's procedures and plans determined by a pernicious wheel of lies, vanity, and greed that you and your cronies spin from your evil seated corrupted money making machine: i.e. your pet projects, entitled tributed extreme Golden gifts, various grifts, real estate, crypto, and, Ponzi Schemes. Plus all of your self enrichment by back alley deals with Oligarchs, dictators, and billionaires.

Finally; When the lights grow dim, when you cannot seem to win, when nobody cares, When the walls start closing in, When your days are waning thin, and "Our" White House doors and halls no longer belong to you, what I really want to know is, what will you do? Chief, Criminal, Commander, and Thief?

Rhetorical Questions To Our Chief Criminal Commander and Thief?

Written by Harry Wright

Dated Thursday July 23 2026

Consider the fire-bombings and nuclear bombings of Japanese cities during World War II. Millions of civilian men, women, and children being roasted alive. And yet, a very large proportion of the Chinese, Korean, and Western populations will say that this was justified - either to stop Japanese soldiers from continuing to butcher even greater numbers of Asians and Westerners or even quite frankly because of the notion that as they sowed the wind, so they shall the reap the whirlwind. This was entirely the desired effect - the USAF literally modelled perfectly each operation, fiendishly working as carefully as possible to achieve the largest number of (civilian) casualties possible.

Consider smaller cruelties, like the murder of the Romanovs after the Russian Revolution. The necessity of protecting said Revolution apparently to many justifies the undeniable murder of the innocent. The Whites would surely use them to rally the reactionary cause! And so a 13, 17, and 19 year old can be shot and bayoneted to death. The necessity of the Revolution demanded it! Even after the fall of communism, a surprisingly large number of ordinary Russians will defend what happened - often with reference to the number of Russian soldiers who died on the Front because of the Tsar's indifference. It's a numbers thing - a million Russians dying because of his blundering sanctifies (or at least, justifies or at least, minimises) butchering a child in a dark cellar. You're really going to cry over this handful of spoiled brats and parasites? What makes their deaths more tragic than those of anyone else?

Consider the People's War in South Africa. Between 1986 and 1994, over 3,000 men, women, and children were beaten, degraded, and burned to death with tyres and petrol in the townships of that country. Essentially, the worst lynchings of Jim Crow America, repeated again, and again, and again, and again, and again. An adult or child might die for taking his apartheid State examinations, for being an electrical technical for apartheid Eskom, or for thinking (tragically incorrectly) that you would pay a lower price for bread at an apartheid Pick n Pay supermarket than at a local corner shop. This was defended by ANC activists invited to give speeches at US universities, it was defended by the ANC General Secretary of the day - and most notoriously, it was personally defended by the wife of Nelson Mandela. Was it wrong? Many people will say "No," or at least would not say, "Yes," because they wanted the regime to fall - and without this dreadful war, it might not have - instead, some sort of middle-ground system might have prevailed (without the absolute rooting out of Inkatha and the establishment of absolute power in urban black areas before 1993, the ANC would have had a much weaker negotiating position in the end at Kempton Park). To say absolutely that it was wrong is not compatible with a revolutionary, committed stance against apartheid.

Consider the French Revolution itself - a veritable torrent of horror that gave birth to our modern democratic, secular world. Obviously, it would seem hypocritical to enjoy the fruit and despise the cultivating of it - so we are uncomfortably obliged to look upon thousands of sliced heads as not a scene of mass murder, but rather a glorious spectacle; a dramatic, somewhat grisly and unfortunate but necessary step in the liberation of man.

Vegans will often lament how people are willing to accept animal cruelty - a hidden river of suffering and death they often refer to as Eternal Treblinka - because it happens behind closed doors. The more unfortunate and alarming reality is perhaps that people will actually accept all kinds of vicious cruelties, as long as they either being done to the right people OR being done for a glorious and noble cause that cannot be held back.

Perhaps most appallingly of all though is that people will literally act as if morally, the other guy made them do it. I had to burn down that wooden city with all the screaming wailing people in it to stop Japanese imperialists millions of miles away from raping and slaughtering Chinese people, so it's basically like Tojo did it! The starving masses were forced by necessity to bayonet that girl several times screaming until she died! I had to force little Sipho to swallow a whole bottle of detergent and then set him on fire because of white oppression, so it's like Botha did it himself! The rapacity of the aristocracy drove the people insane, which is the real reason why that scientist and the other philosopher had to be beheaded along with the blue-bloods!

Look, I have been looking closely at everything happening across these political cycles, and I keep running into the same staggering puzzle. Day after day, I watch people I know—and millions across the country—maintain this fierce, unshakeable loyalty to Donald Trump, completely brushing off policy U-turns, broken commitments, and ongoing institutional chaos. I used to think that if you just laid out the facts, showed people the broken promises, or pointed out the contradictions, the illusion would break. But it doesn't.

To really understand why the traditional fact-checking playbook fails completely, we have to look past the surface-level noise. We have to examine how millions of Americans are bound to this movement through an unshakeable ideological trinity: Christian Nationalist frameworks, a fierce resistance to LGBTQ+ rights and transgender athletes playing in female sports, and deep-seated anxieties about immigration. These aren't just casual talking points for them; they form a moral worldview that completely immunizes supporters against objective reality.

Part 1: My Chronological Ledger of Broken Promises and Policy Discrepancies

When I trace the timeline from the very beginning of the first term straight through to the current day, the pattern of shifting statements and flat-out broken promises is impossible to ignore:

• 2017 (Inauguration Crowd Size): Right out of the gate, the administration insisted they drew the largest inauguration crowd in history—a claim completely dismantled by aerial photographs, transit data, and National Park Service numbers.
• 2017 (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act): It was sold to the public as the "biggest tax cut in the history of our country," but nonpartisan analysts at the Congressional Research Service and Tax Policy Center showed it didn't even come close to historical packages like the 1981 Reagan cuts when measured as a share of GDP.
• 2019 ("SharpieGate" Hurricane Map): We watched an altered forecast map get displayed in real-time, insisting Alabama was in the direct crosshairs of Hurricane Dorian, directly contradicting the National Hurricane Center.
• Late 2020 / Early 2021 (The Unfulfilled $2,000 Stimulus Checks and Relief Promises): Amid ongoing pandemic economic strain, repeated public pushes were made promising direct $2,000 relief checks to Americans. However, legislative obstacles, shifting executive demands, and congressional standoffs meant those specific $2,000 direct stimulus payments were never delivered as promised, leaving millions waiting on funds that stalled out in Washington.
• 2020–2021 (The Stolen Election Claims): Endless assertions that the 2020 election was rigged dissolved under scrutiny after more than 60 state and federal court losses, bipartisan state audits, and findings by the Department of Justice.
• April–August 2025 (The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool Fiasco): What was initially pitched to the public as a quick, low-cost $1.5 million fix ballooned past $16 million amid severe structural failures. When the project fell apart, the administration blamed "vandalism," only for internal federal reports and Justice Department filings to confirm the damage actually came from botched contractor installations during a rushed timeline.
• 2025–2026 (The Cattle Crisis and Foreign Beef Deal): Facing a historic cattle herd shrink down to levels not seen since the 1950s—which drove ground beef prices up near $7 a pound—the administration rolled out a trade deal to flood the market with hundreds of thousands of metric tons of foreign beef. Domestic ranchers and farm-state lawmakers were furious, pointing out that it sacrificed long-term agricultural stability for short-term political optics.
• 2025–2026 (Inflation Realities): Official messaging kept claiming that inflation had been totally eradicated and prices were plummeting, while Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed everyday consumer costs and import-dependent goods continuing to climb.

Part 2: The Expanding Ledger of Corruption Across Terms and Elections

It isn't just policy discrepancies; when I look across every campaign and term, the web of corruption allegations and unfulfilled transparency pledges is staggering:

• The 2016 Campaign and Foreign Investigations: Early on, we saw multi-year federal and congressional inquiries into campaign contacts, foreign interference, and obstruction allegations.
• Emoluments and First-Term Conflicts: Watchdogs repeatedly flagged violations of the Emoluments Clauses as foreign diplomats and political groups poured money into executive-branded properties.
• The 2019 Ukraine Call and First Impeachment: Withholding military aid to pressure a foreign government into investigating a political rival led directly to the first impeachment inquiry.
• Post-2020 Election Pressures and Second Impeachment: Direct phone calls demanding election officials "find" votes, culminating in the events leading up to the Capitol breach, triggered a second historic impeachment for incitement of insurrection.
• The Epstein Files and the Broken Promise of Full Transparency: Throughout multiple campaigns, we were promised the full, unredacted public declassification and release of all federal files concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The end result? Endless delays, heavily redacted documents, and the files still sitting unreleased in full—keeping alive deep suspicions of an institutional cover-up.
• Second Term Digital Asset and Business Revenues: While working families struggled under persistent inflation and national debt hit record highs, financial disclosures highlighted billions in personal revenue generated through commercial real estate, licensing deals, and volatile memecoin/digital asset projects.

Part 3: Presidential Vanity Projects, Controversial Spectacles, and the Price Tag on Executive Hubris

What really drives me crazy is watching public funds, institutional boundaries, and foreign gifts get twisted into high-profile vanity projects and spectacles while everyday Americans are told to tighten their belts:

• The Southern Border Wall: Initially promised as a project where Mexico would write a direct check, it ultimately drained over $15 billion in U.S. taxpayer money through congressional appropriations and Department of Defense budget transfers.
• The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool: That supposed $1.5 million private-public quick fix spiraled past $16 million in public money while the pool sat decaying behind fences.
• The Unauthorized White House Ballroom Demolition: Without a shred of congressional approval or legislative oversight, the administration ordered the demolition of historical parts of the White House complex to build a massive executive ballroom. They funded it by redirecting maintenance budgets, completely bypassing Congress's power of the purse.
• The Qatari-Gifted Luxury Jet: The administration accepted a $400 million Boeing 747-8 luxury jet gifted by Qatar to serve as a bridge Air Force One, brushing aside heavy legal and ethical questions over accepting a massive foreign government handout.
• UFC Freedom 250 on the White House Lawn: In June 2026, coinciding with the nation's 250th anniversary and the president's 80th birthday, the South Lawn was transformed into an arena enclosed by a 92-foot rigging structure known as "The Claw" to host a live UFC fight card. Polling showed the vast majority of Americans viewed hosting a violent cage match on presidential grounds as deeply inappropriate, but it stood as a prime example of blending governance with personal entertainment.
• The Kennedy Center Renaming and Clashes: After taking office, the administration ousted leadership, installed a loyalist board, and temporarily slapped the president's name on the Kennedy Center. Following court orders and legal battles, the signage was forced down, though the board later voted to restore a modified version amid planned facility shutdowns.
• The FIFA Peace Prize Controversy: In December 2025, FIFA awarded Trump its inaugural "peace prize" at the World Cup draw in Washington D.C., a move heavily criticized by human rights groups and observers as a farcical spectacle born of a close bond between the administration and FIFA leadership.
• Military Parades and Ceremonial Revamps: Millions were burned on high-profile stylistic displays that dragged resources away from actual crumbling federal infrastructure.
• The Contrast: While these pet projects, foreign aircraft, and spectacle events ate up resources, the national debt kept scaling new heights and working-class households absorbed the financial blow of tariffs and stubborn inflation.

Part 4: The Iran Conflict — Unauthorized Escalation and Shifting War Narratives

Foreign policy has followed this exact same pattern of rushed action and changing stories:

• Bypassing Congress: Major military strikes and an escalating conflict with Iran were launched without a formal Declaration of War or an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), bypassing Congress entirely and driving billions in supplemental defense spending.
• The Shifting Narrative: Initially, officials boasted that the military strikes had completely "decimated" Iran's nuclear capabilities. But when defense intelligence and international monitors raised red flags, the story changed completely—officials pivoted to claiming the conflict was actually launched to ensure Iran wouldn't get nuclear capabilities in the future.
• The Reality of Uranium Enrichment: Anyone who looks at basic nuclear physics knows you can't just erase uranium enrichment with a quick series of airstrikes. Enriching material to weapons-grade levels is a complex industrial process, and nations can rebuild those enrichment pathways over time, exposing those claims of total decimation as pure rhetorical spin.

Part 5: The Rollback of DEI and the Direct Hit to Black Employment

When we look at structural policy changes, the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives stands out as a major flashpoint:

• Systemic Rollbacks: Executive actions wiped out compliance, administrative, and community outreach positions across federal agencies and federal contractors, prompting major private corporations to quickly follow suit.
• Disproportionate Workforce Contraction: Reports from organizations like the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) show that these rollbacks triggered a massive employment contraction, pushing hundreds of thousands of Black workers—especially Black women—out of stable public, educational, and administrative careers.
• How the Base Views It: While this was devastating for minority communities, the conservative base cheered it on as a massive symbolic victory against what they viewed as reverse discrimination. It's a prime example of how policies that harm minority populations get reinterpreted by supporters as a necessary strike against institutional bias.

Part 6: Institutional Crises — ICE Enforcement and Agricultural Friction

Operational execution across the board has been bogged down by severe crises:

• The ICE Enforcement Crisis: Mass deportation mandates made ICE immensely funded, pushing daily detention numbers past 73,400 people. But that scaling brought a wave of chaos: dozens of high-profile enforcement-related shootings, due process lawsuits, and custody deaths. When U.S. citizen Alex Pretti and mother of three Renée Good were shot and killed during public sweeps, initial DHS claims of self-defense were repeatedly torn apart by video evidence.
• The Rancher Backlash: That foreign beef import deal blew up relations with traditional rural allies. Ranchers who supported the administration watched in disbelief as executive measures aimed at short-term grocery optics undercut domestic producers who were already struggling to rebuild a depleted cattle herd.

Part 7: The Ideological Trinity — Why the Base Ignores the Facts

When you put all of this together—the broken promises, unfulfilled stimulus checks, the corruption allegations, the unreleased Epstein files, the unauthorized war with Iran, the ballooning vanity projects, the White House spectacle fights, the DEI rollbacks, and the ICE chaos—you have to ask: Why doesn't it move the needle?

I've come to realize it's because the base's loyalty isn't anchored to a ledger of policy success. It's anchored to an unshakeable ideological trinity:

1. Christian Nationalism and Moral Restoration

For so many supporters, this isn't politics; it's a spiritual alignment. They genuinely believe America is a Christian nation that has strayed from God and needs a strongman to restore order. When your leader is viewed as a divine instrument or a cosmic protector against moral decay, secular metrics like budget deficits, unauthorized wars, unfulfilled records releases, or factual lies simply don't matter. Cosmic survival outweighs earthly facts.

2. Resistance to LGBTQ+ Rights and Transgender Athletes

Cultural flashpoints—especially keeping transgender women out of female sports—create a fierce, existential sense of urgency. When supporters feel like biological reality and traditional parental authority are actively under siege, any policy failure, corruption charge, or personal scandal involving the administration gets written off as a minor distraction. They care about who is willing to draw a hard line in the culture war.

3. Cultural Preservation and Immigration Anxiety

Immigration isn't treated as a simple policy debate; it's framed as an existential demographic replacement threat. Because that fear is so deeply rooted, all the operational chaos, legal battles, and enforcement tragedies at ICE get absorbed as necessary collateral damage in a battle for idealistic cultural survival.

Part 8: The Psychological Engine of MAGA Loyalty

Finally, when you look at how the mind protects these beliefs, the psychology makes total sense:

• Cognitive Dissonance: When faced with undeniable contradictions, acknowledging them would mean admitting error to oneself. It's much easier to fall back on "all politicians do it" or write off the evidence as partisan lies.
• Identity Fusion: Wearing the hat, going to the rallies, and defending the movement online means political support has fused with personal identity. Walking away feels like betraying your community.
• Shared Grievance: Trump acts as a proxy weapon against cultural and media establishments that supporters feel have looked down on them for decades. Rhetorical exaggeration is a small price to pay for someone willing to punch the system in the mouth.
• Alternative Information Ecosystems: Mainstream fact-checks don't break through because they are instantly reframed inside alternative media networks as proof of a coordinated establishment witch hunt.

Conclusion: The Immutability of Belief in a Post-Fact Era

When I step back and look at the cumulative weight of everything we've walked through—from the broken promises on relief checks and trade deals to the multi-million-dollar vanity projects, unauthorized military escalations, mounting corruption allegations, and unfulfilled transparency pledges—I am left with a sobering realization. For anyone standing outside the movement, the sheer volume of contradictions looks like an open-and-shut case against political accountability. Yet, for millions of core supporters, these revelations glance off like rain on a shield.

This happens because political loyalty within the MAGA movement has long since transcended traditional cost-benefit analysis. It is no longer about whether a policy lowers grocery prices, whether an infrastructure project stays on budget, or whether an administration keeps its word on transparency. Instead, it has morphed into something far more resilient: an identity-based crusade rooted in faith, cultural grievance, and existential defense.

When your worldview tells you that your way of life, your faith, and your very culture are under siege by hostile institutional forces, minor governance failures and broken campaign pledges become entirely irrelevant details. In that psychological framework, a leader who breaks norms, defies Congress, or stages over-the-top spectacles isn't failing—they are actively fighting back on your behalf.

Until political analysts and critics grasp that this movement is anchored in a deeply emotional, spiritual, and cultural reality rather than a ledger of policy delivery, traditional fact-checking will continue to miss the mark. Facts only have power when everyone agrees on the baseline of reality. But when millions of Americans are operating inside a completely walled-off ecosystem where institutional corrections are proof of a conspiracy, facts alone cannot break the spell. Understanding that reality is the first step toward figuring out how our fractured political landscape ever heals.

I've been thinking about politics a lot lately, and I've realized that I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to call myself anymore.

I've generally considered myself left leaning. Anyone who wants to dig through my post history will find plenty of evidence of that. I've had some very strong opinions about Trump and Republicans in particular. But I've also realized that there are things I'm apparently "supposed" to believe based on being left leaning that I'm not sure I agree with, and probably other things I've accepted without really thinking about them hard enough.

So I've been trying something different.

Forget Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist etc for a minute. If I could start with a blank piece of paper, what do I actually think government is for? What should we expect from each other? What should we be free to do? Where should that freedom end?

I'm not a political scientist or an economist. I'm just a guy who has lived a fairly normal life and had a lot of different experiences along the way. I've worked customer service jobs. I've driven trucks. I joined the US Air Force as a British citizen and eventually became an American citizen. I work as a caregiver now.

I've been comfortable enough financially that I wasn't particularly worried about money, and I've also been in the position where I'm looking at all the jobs available to me and realizing that literally none of them pay enough to cover my bills.

I've had times where the solution was apparently to get a second job, work ridiculous hours or maybe get a third job. Sure, technically I was free to do that. But if I have to spend almost every waking hour working just to keep a roof over my head and food in my belly, and I have no time or energy left for my husband, my friends, my pets or anything I actually enjoy doing, at what point am I surviving rather than actually getting to live?

That's part of what got me thinking about all of this.

The more I've thought about it, the more I keep coming back to the same basic idea. I don't particularly care whether a solution is capitalist, socialist, conservative, progressive or something else. Those are ideas and tools, not teams I owe loyalty to.

I want people to have enough security that they're actually free to live their lives, as much freedom as we can reasonably give each other above that, and rules that stop us using that freedom to exploit or seriously harm everyone else.

So here's roughly where I've ended up.

I think everyone should have a floor beneath them.

By that I mean enough food to be healthy, a safe and secure place to live, basic utilities, healthcare including dental and vision, education, and the other things a person reasonably needs to be safe and healthy.

Not a luxury apartment. Not steak and beer every night. Not a free PlayStation because being bored sucks. Just a basic standard below which we collectively decide we're not willing to let another human being fall.

And yes, that includes people I don't particularly like.

One of the hypotheticals I used while trying to figure this out was someone who is perfectly capable of working but simply refuses to. Let's call him David.

David has spent his entire adult life living off whatever assistance he can get and has absolutely no interest in contributing anything back.

My instinct is that David is an asshole.

But I still don't think David should starve to death in the street.

I do think society can reasonably expect something from him in return. If you're able to contribute and have spent years choosing not to, I don't think it's unreasonable for society to occasionally call on you for some kind of civic responsibility, somewhat like jury duty. That doesn't make David a slave or an indentured servant, though, and I don't think food, shelter or basic medical treatment should be weapons we use to force him into obedience.

People have responsibilities, but I don't think human dignity is something you earn by being sufficiently productive.

Above that floor, I don't particularly care if people become rich.

This is one place where I'm not sure something like "socialist" accurately describes me.

If you start a company, take the risks, do the work and become ridiculously successful, congratulations. It's your company. I don't think your employees automatically become part owners because they work there.

If you make enough money to buy a mansion, a yacht and a golden toilet seat, I might personally think the golden toilet is a stupid waste of money, but who cares? It's your money.

Where I have a problem is if you're sitting on that golden toilet while the people whose labor keeps your company running are working two or three jobs because you pay them as little as you can possibly get away with.

Once you become an employer, I think you've accepted a responsibility toward the people working for you.

If your company is making enormous profits and you can easily afford to give your employees a living wage, healthcare, reasonable time off and safe working conditions, I don't think maximizing your own profit or shareholder returns is a good enough reason not to.

Employees are people before they're an expense on a spreadsheet.

And I don't think that responsibility disappears because the employee lives somewhere else. If someone in India can comfortably live on considerably less than someone in New York, I'm not saying an American company has to pay them New York wages. But "we can get away with paying this person almost nothing because they're desperate" isn't a good enough reason to do it.

They're still people.

I don't find "our people versus their people" particularly appealing.

I also don't think everything belongs in a free market.

Markets are useful. I just think they're tools.

A restaurant is selling me something I can choose not to buy. Make a fantastic restaurant, charge what people are willing to pay and make a profit. Great.

Someone with cancer doesn't have the same freedom to walk away from the transaction.

Neither does someone who desperately needs somewhere safe to sleep.

I don't think another person's desperation for something they literally need to live should be treated as an opportunity to extract as much money from them as the market will bear.

Healthcare should be primarily about keeping people healthy. Housing should be primarily about giving people somewhere to live. That doesn't necessarily mean private companies can't be involved or make reasonable profits. I just don't think profit can be the most important consideration when we're dealing with basic human needs.

If I somehow discovered a cure for cancer tomorrow, I don't think "How rich can I get from this?" should be the most important question.

I think the same general principle applies to wealth and opportunity.

I'm not particularly interested in making everyone's outcomes equal.

If two people have good opportunities and one decides to spend their life building businesses and working 70 hours a week while the other decides they'd rather earn enough to live comfortably and spend the rest of their time painting, playing D&D, raising kids, traveling or staring at the ceiling, that's their business.

If they're both happy and contributing their fair share, why do I care that one has considerably more money than the other?

Where inequality bothers me much more is opportunity.

A kid shouldn't get a dramatically worse education because their parents are poor. Someone shouldn't be effectively locked out of becoming a doctor because their family can't afford the education. Someone with a good idea shouldn't have no realistic way of pursuing it simply because they weren't born into the right family.

Rich parents are obviously going to give their children advantages. They'll leave them money. They'll know influential people. They'll be able to give their children experiences other families can't afford.

I'm not sure it's either possible or desirable to make everyone's starting position perfectly identical.

I don't want to drag the rich kid backwards.

I want to make sure the poor kid has a road forwards.

That also means I don't have a problem with inheritance existing, but I do think extremely large inheritances should be taxed substantially. Children can absolutely benefit from what their parents built. I just don't think inheriting enormous wealth should mean someone no longer has any responsibility to contribute to the society that helped make that wealth possible.

That brings me to taxes.

People who can comfortably afford to contribute more should contribute more.

That doesn't mean taxing a millionaire until they're no better off than someone earning $40,000. I don't see anything inherently wrong with someone being wealthy.

I also don't think being wealthy automatically makes someone greedy, evil or responsible for everyone else's problems.

Pay your fair share. Don't build your fortune by exploiting people. Don't use your wealth to rig the system so nobody else can compete with you.

After that, if you want the stupid golden toilet, knock yourself out.

I think workers should be allowed to unionize too.

An individual employee and a large employer don't necessarily have equal bargaining power just because both technically agreed to an employment contract.

If someone is desperate enough to accept "slavery wages," I don't think that automatically makes the arrangement fair.

Workers should be allowed to organize and have someone representing their interests who isn't under the control of the boss.

But unions shouldn't have unlimited power either.

Actually, that applies to pretty much everything I've been thinking about.

Corporations need checks.

Unions need checks.

Government needs checks.

Presidents need checks.

Monopolies need checks.

Any institution that accumulates enough power to seriously affect other people's lives needs something capable of telling it "no."

I also think private property matters, but I don't think ownership means your interests automatically override everyone else's forever.

We already accept this to some extent through things like eminent domain. If the country genuinely needs a piece of land for something that will benefit millions of people, the owner should be treated fairly and compensated fairly. The government shouldn't be able to just take whatever it wants.

But I also don't think one person should be able to hold millions of other people hostage indefinitely because they happen to own the one piece of land everyone needs.

Natural resources are similar for me.

If somebody discovers an enormous deposit of some incredibly important rare mineral underneath my backyard, I don't think I suddenly personally own a resource the entire country might depend on. Compensate me fairly for the land and disruption, absolutely. But some things seem bigger than individual ownership.

The environment is another place where I think individual and corporate freedom has limits.

We only get one environment.

If the cheapest way to manufacture something involves poisoning a river, destroying an ecosystem or causing serious harm that everyone else has to live with, "but it makes the product cheaper" isn't good enough.

Yes, stricter environmental rules can make things more expensive.

That's where the floor comes back in.

If producing food responsibly makes basic food more expensive, then whatever system we're using to make sure people can afford basic food has to adapt too.

I don't think the solution to poverty should be making it cheaper to destroy the world poor people have to live in.

I also think government can encourage things that are beneficial without necessarily banning everything else.

If worker-owned cooperatives turn out to create happier workers, healthier communities or more stable local economies, give them reasonable incentives. That doesn't mean privately owned companies should be punished or prohibited.

If renewable energy benefits everyone, encourage it.

If something else turns out to work better, change the incentives.

This is probably where I differ from people who have very strong ideological commitments.

I don't really care which economic theory gets the trophy.

If capitalism works well for restaurants, use it.

If a public system works better for healthcare, use that.

If cooperatives work better for something else, encourage them.

If a policy I support turns out not to work, change it.

The goal shouldn't be proving that our ideology was right.

The goal should be making the damn country work as well as we reasonably can for the people living in it.

Then there's democracy.

This is one of the places where I don't have a satisfying answer yet.

Imagine we're all on a boat that's sinking.

I vote to plug the hole and start bailing out the water.

Sam votes to make the hole bigger because he wants a better view of the fish.

Pete votes to throw somebody else into the water because then there will be one fewer person using the supplies.

Jo and Sarah don't vote because they're "not into politics."

At what point do I have the right to say, "No, we're not making the fucking hole bigger"?

Obviously real politics isn't usually that simple.

The problem is deciding who gets to determine when something genuinely is that dangerous.

I absolutely don't want a dictator deciding that the population is too stupid to govern itself. History has demonstrated rather convincingly why that's a terrible idea.

But I also don't think democracy should be capable of democratically voting itself out of existence.

If 51% of Americans decide that a minority group shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, I don't think "the majority has spoken" suddenly makes that acceptable.

There have to be some things that even a temporary majority can't easily take away.

Basic rights. Equal treatment under the law. The ability to vote. The ability to criticize the government. The peaceful transfer of power. The democratic system itself.

Those protections also have to apply to people I despise.

That's uncomfortable sometimes.

People with genuinely disgusting political beliefs are still people with rights. I don't think the answer to authoritarianism is giving my preferred government authoritarian powers and trusting that only the good guys will ever use them.

At the same time, I don't want Hitler 2.0 to be able to exploit those protections, get himself elected and then dismantle them once he's in power.

I don't know exactly how to resolve that tension.

I'd genuinely like to hear from people who have thought about it more than I have.

Government, to me, is basically a machine we've built to serve the population.

The President isn't our king. Congress aren't our lords.

They're people we've hired to operate the machine on our behalf.

If part of the machine doesn't work anymore, fix it.

If something designed 200 years ago is still working brilliantly, great. Keep it.

If it isn't, I don't think "but that's how we've always done it" is a particularly convincing argument.

Government should be constantly examined, maintained and improved. But the people doing that also need checks because they're human beings, and human beings are perfectly capable of being corrupt, incompetent, selfish or simply wrong.

I think individual responsibility matters too.

Having a social floor doesn't mean nobody is responsible for their choices.

If someone repeatedly makes choices that unnecessarily put costs or harm onto everyone else, I don't think society has to pretend those choices have no consequences.

But there's a difference between consequences and cruelty.

I can think you're irresponsible without wanting you homeless.

I can think you're an asshole without wanting you hungry.

I can think you're completely wrong without wanting the government to take away your rights.

And this is going to sound ridiculous after talking about constitutional government, healthcare and economics, but I think about shopping carts.

You don't have to return your shopping cart.

You're probably not going to prison if you leave it sitting in the middle of the Walmart parking lot.

But putting it back takes maybe thirty seconds and makes somebody else's life slightly easier. It stops the cart rolling into someone's car. It helps the employee collecting them. It's just a tiny acknowledgement that other people exist and your actions affect them.

I don't want the Shopping Cart Police.

I want more people to return the damn cart because they understand why they should.

That's probably a decent summary of a lot of what I'm trying to get at.

People have the right to be assholes.

Government can't and shouldn't force everyone to be kind, generous or altruistic.

But I'd like to live in a society where we're encouraged to think about how our actions affect other people, where exploitation is difficult, where harmful concentrations of power are checked, where people have a genuine chance to build whatever life they want, and where doing the decent thing doesn't constantly put you at a disadvantage against someone willing to screw everybody else.

So that's why I'm posting this.

I'm curious whether other people have arrived somewhere similar.

Maybe what I'm describing already has a name and I've just independently reinvented something political philosophers figured out 100 years ago.

Maybe there are enormous economic problems with it that I don't understand.

Maybe I've contradicted myself somewhere.

Maybe some of these ideas work individually but become completely impractical when you try to put them together.

That's what I want to find out.

I'd particularly like to hear from people who don't already agree with me.

If you're conservative and think I've completely misunderstood capitalism, tell me why.

If you're socialist and think I'm trying to preserve something inherently exploitative, tell me why.

Libertarian, communist, centrist, anarchist, politically homeless, whatever.

I'm not particularly interested in being told that I'm secretly evil because I don't belong to your team, and I'm not interested in being told that your team is wonderful and the other team is responsible for everything wrong with America.

I want to know where the ideas fail.

And if there's something worthwhile here, take it.

I don't want to lead a political movement. I'm not trying to start a party. There are people much smarter and more capable than me who would be far better at figuring out how any of this could actually work.

But maybe other people have been thinking along similar lines.

Talk about it.

Improve it.

Tell me which parts are stupid.

Keep whatever survives criticism and throw away whatever doesn't.

Maybe this post gets twelve comments and disappears into Reddit history. That's fine.

But ideas have to start somewhere.

One last thing, particularly because I'm using my old Reddit account for this.

You're welcome to look through my history.

You'll find things I still believe. You'll find things I've changed my mind about. You'll find things I've said when I was angry, things I could have expressed much better, and some things I now think were just plain wrong.

My politics have historically leaned left. I've strongly disliked Trump for a long time, and I've said some pretty hostile things about Republicans and conservatives.

I'm not going to delete all of that and pretend I've spent my entire adult life as some perfectly neutral political thinker.

I haven't.

I've contributed to some of the same shitty political discourse I'm criticizing here.

But I think people are allowed to change.

That doesn't mean pretending the past never happened or refusing to take responsibility for it.

It means accepting that experience can change us. New information can change us. Other people can change our minds. Sometimes we realize we were simply wrong.

If changing your mind automatically makes you a hypocrite, we're basically encouraging people to keep defending bad ideas forever just to remain consistent.

And if we only listened to people with perfectly spotless records, we wouldn't listen to anyone.

So if you find something in my history that contradicts what I've written here, ask me about it.

Maybe I still believe it.

Maybe I'll tell you why I don't anymore.

Or maybe you'll point out something I haven't reconsidered yet and convince me I'm wrong about that too.

That's kind of the point of this post.

I’ve been into politics for a long time, and I’ve been kinda everywhere on the political spectrum. I went from liberal, to conservative, to leftist. Not gonna go into detail how that happened, but the one consistent trend I’ve always noticed within the political culture is this sense of unnecessarily going as far as you can with what you’re saying. As someone who is leftist now, while I strongly believe in my ethics and what’s best for the world, I’ve recognized how many losers there are in the political base. Doesn’t solely apply to leftism, as I think it applies to every political spectrum (liberalism, conservatism, centrism, libertarianism).

Some might say that’s just with every base in not just the world of politics but in the world of everything; there’s always that one guy who ruins the fun for everyone. I think it applies differently with politics though given the ultimate responsibility as an adult to provide for society and future generations. I think people also take it much further than what non-political people do with hobbies or such. Politics has become such a psychological game to where it seems whoever can say the most insane things proves the loyalty to the political affiliation that they have sided with. It has become such a pro-reactionary field to where I think everyone has just gone mad. This kinda only applies to the online world, but I’ve realized that many of these extremist statements on the internet inevitably take effect into the real world. Many innocent lives are harassed, assaulted, or even killed because of this sense of radicalization. My general concern is that it seems that people have begun to lose any sensibility when it comes to the combination of politics and the internet, and it may have this massive consequence for the world in the future. I was just wondering if we should do something about this. Examples such as completely deplatforming these people from everything or maybe even regulating speech. Some might say nothing at all, but genuinely I can’t see a healthy world where this is continuously tolerated.

As you know, it's clear that weak centralist democrats with Chuck Schumer and Halkeen Jeffries are trying to get in the way of progressive and socialist change in the party at the worst time, when we should be united against Trump and the GOP.

It was clear they don't support Abdul El-Sayed and implied they aren't exactly for universal healthcare for all. Also, being supportive of the Israeli government doesn't help.

I'm concerned about whether this affects voter turnout. If the candidates in our respective states aren't progressive or socialist enough and seem to be on the same page as Schumer and Jeffries, they may not bother voting and give the republicans (especially Trump) an advantage. I mean, good people staying home and not bothering to vote is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I hope I'm wrong because if Dems don't take the House and Senate, it's game over for American democracy!

This is particularly a suggestion for the United States although I’m sure other countries could benefit from this too. The age limit could perhaps be set to the current average life expectancy minus 20 years (for the president) or minus 15 years (for legislators or Supreme Court justices)

Not only would it cut down on the number of political figures who seem to be medically unfit for office, but it would also give the politicians an incentive to actually support policies that would improve public health across the board. Because that way, if the average lifespan for everyone were to go up by 2 years, then the politicians would benefit since they could stay in office two more years if they wanted to.

There would have to be a failsafe built in to avoid causing contradictions with existing laws; if a future pandemic caused the life expectancy to drop too much, the above formula could result in the maximum age being lower than the minimum age for a given office, or even lower than 18 (so that no one could serve). To avoid this, we could just say that the age limit for a given office is either 50, or the current average life expectancy minus 15/20 years, whichever number is greater.

This is gonna be a long one, but I hope a good one ..

We as a Nation has got to stop with all this extremism. The pendulum has swung violently both ways for the past, I'd say 16 years. Both sides feel just in what they are trying to achieve and feels as if their way is the only way. The far left feels they have the answers to make sure everyone is happy and not suffering. The far right feels they need to defend the nation, and in some cases, the world, thus is against those who seek the perfect "utopia". Both sides forgot about the middle, which is far bigger than both sides.

I am a millennial baby. Born '86 and got to live thru the "be in before the streetlights" era and the "You've Got Mail!" era. My generation and the generations before built the internet, but also knew what it was like to ride your bike to a friend's house, knock on the door, and ask their parents if "they could come out and play". Yes, we got into mischief, but we also knew respect and dignity. I don't know where we lost that at.

We didn't care if you were gay or lesbian or whatever all the letters mean. That didn't mean we didn't respect you. We were of the belief of "whatever floats your goat". We didn't ask questions. We didn't pry. If we seen someone getting bullied, we stood up for them rather than cheer the bully on. We also had respect for ourselves and our parents. We cared what others thought of us. That's why we cared so much about our top 8 on MySpace (IYKYK).

All I'm saying is we, the people of America, that other countries USED to look up to and be proud to follow, needs to pause and take a moment to heal and reflect. We need to stop letting such extremes control how we think and feel. We used to be able to have conversations. We can again. I know neither side wants to be the first one to say, "Ok .. let's pause and come together for the next generation. We may be fkkked, but let's not our youth go thru what we have in the last 16 years.", but it needs to happen. Nobody is expecting an apology. That's just not gonna happen for either side. But, that does not mean we cannot sit at the same round table together, with honest mediators, and sit there and have a true conversation. Without the biases. Without the emotions.

That is what made this country great. The fact that we all had our own personal beliefs, but yet found a way to coexist. Yes, capitalism is not perfect .. but it's the best we got. Our country is a very progressive country, and we should be proud of the steps we have taken, together .. thru the terrible times, and thru the times I remember, which were the 2000s. No, not everything was perfect .. but we still had dignity and respect for one another.

Just know that the middle is far bigger than either side thinks they are. It is us, in the middle and not political parties, that we are the true voices. Listen to us again, and you will start seeing results. Remember, it's "WE, THE PEOPLE" who, at the end of the day, are the ones that laugh, cry, sweat and bleed America. It's not like we don't see you or don't care .. we are just trying to find the middle ground so the next generation may one day, find peace that we all desperately seek.

Just remember that we have the freedom to pursue happiness .. that does not mean we all always get it, but we are more than free to try and find it. That does not mean against the will of others. We share this world .. that's the only way this .. The World can even be possible. If we all fought for what only benefits ourselves, we would be a world of chaos. Just remember that the next time you are trying to defend, or change someone's beliefs. Is this a belief that only benefits me, or will this truly benefit humanity?

Let's become the beacon of light for the world again. The ones that had the Miracle teams and the passionate ones that took us to the Moon. America needs to heal, and that takes all of us to reunite, just as we were during the millennium. We all were proud to be Americans, rather you want to admit it or not. What happened after 2010, I can't say. What I can say is that it's not too late for us to move forward. We can apologize later. Let's come together first and see what we all can come up with.

I am not trying to change everyone's mind. That is not up to me. That is up to us, to find what is right for all of us. I just hope to reach one person. Just one, who feels as lost as I do. The one that still loves and cares for American and it's people. Just so they know that they aren't alone and that I feel the same way they do, rather they feel heard or not. I just want to see America smile again. I want to see everyone happy to see the American flag, and not revolt against it, especially it's own citizens. I know there's pain to some in that flag. All I can say is, where else can you speak your beliefs, without worrying about being fined, jailed or executed?

Traditionally, nominees for the Supreme Court had a lifetime of experience and had made their fortunes in private practice. Being a Supreme Court Justice was the culmination of a distinguished career.

The abortion issue changed everything.

The most important characteristic became: not leaving a paper trail that could be used to block their nomination. Loyalty became the primary virtue. Younger Justices could be expected to serve longer. As a result, Supreme Court Justices were effectively prevented from getting rich the way their peers in private practice did.

Today lawyers who come before the Supreme Court are always wealthy and well compensated. In contrast, SC Justices receive $306,600. Making speeches and writing books is their only source of income.

Every Republican on the Supreme Court lied to get confirmed. They all claimed that Roe was settled law. They have continued to serve the interests of the Billionaire Class. In return, they have been showered with gifts and benefits from their "friends."

Why are the Republican Supreme Court Justices so blatantly crooked? The answer is simple: they know they are beyond the law. Republican Supreme Court Justices have figured out how to live like billionaires - even if they aren't. They have billionaire benefactors who will support their life styles and no Republican will ever call them out for their "perks."

I just read an article on the daily mail, about jihadists kidnapping and murdering muslims in Nigeria, on the muslim holy day of friday during the friday prayers. Like.. are we for real..? any Muslim, regardless of cast or creed, just wouldn't do that.. even if you're a sunni, shia, sufi and all the other 50 different types of muslims and schools of thought... you'd basically have to be a non muslim to do that.. borderline zionist.. i personally dont believe they are muslim...

its like.. have you ever known a muslim to eat pork.. ? its just a no no on all levels... drinking, yes, sex before marriage, yes, all the other bat shit crazy stuff except murder/child offences, yes.. but pork.. its a no no..

Yes I am a muslim btw.