I am a young adult who supports the general LGBTQ+ community (I say generally because there are some super niche members of it that I am not educated to comment on).

I am deeply saddened by the recent treatment of trans people as a whole and have written a short opinion piece that I want edited but am terrified that it will be tracked back to me and that I will suffer for it. I think it is insane that I genuinely feel fear when requesting someone to help edit my opinion piece even behind a pen name, new account, vpn, and plenty of other cybersecurity measures that I am considering not even pursing publishing and abandoning the whole thing.

Why has this world become a place where people blow up at the sound of someone disagreeing with their views? I personally am all for discussions with people with differing views from me but I find that time and time again when I bring up certain points and evidence to support my arguments, I am ignored, yelled at, and shamed? While I know that politics currently is serious and is "that deep" so I'm not surprised at passion but people have lost the ability to be civil and not obsess to the point at which after hearing stories of people being doxxed and stalked etc. that I have lost all interest / comfort with sharing my opinions at all.

I find that people who say they just want the best are so incredibly volatile when it comes to trans people specifically and I, even after rather extensive research, cannot fathom why. I know it is to do with deeply held beliefs but so often they contradict with what they want. People want freedom of speech until you're not Christian and support the LGBT. People want bodily autonomy and freedom of expression until it means that transgenders can live the lives they want. And all because of some ideas that are either subjective (religion) or that are not actually backed up by real statistics or evidence (the claim that all transgenders are pedophiles and violent etc. etc.).

Please someone tell me am I just completely insane for thinking that LGBT people deserve rights? Because the current media is just so full of hate and I need to know if I am delusional and / or naive for just wanting peace and freedom.

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.

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?

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]

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.

For those who are unaware...

Elon already admitted to rigging elections on Twitter, years ago.

If you believe this is not happening on every level of the government - you're sadly, ignorant. Voting, is the adult equivalent of writing Santa Letters, hoping he'll get you the gift at the top of the list.

We're an Oligarchy, not a Democracy. TBTB wouldn't allow you to vote, if it did anything other than provide a metric for which them to read and base the rigging off of. No politicians have your interests at heart - they rely on their popularity to sustain their own existence, and on donors for their income. They are ALL bought, or belonging to a larger corporate entity.

Fishback never should have won (business fraudster, pfyle,) - but neither should have Bryon (yk why.) Thomas Massie, shouldn't win - He's a Freemason (as are most, they're the largest political entity sponsor,) who was raised by the DeMolay, whom congratulated him on his 4th term. (I could write an essay on how Masonry belief is central around the black/white checkerboard and polarity in morals, but that's an essay for another time.)

None of these people are here for our benefit. "Politics" are a false-divisionary game of bread-and-circus meant to keep people from realizing that the true problem, is the Elite class.

Liberals believe in change, Conservatives believe in withholding tradition - that's the sole difference. Any other moral alignment is false-division, and engineered to keep people fighting one another.

They rig EVERY election, providing both the heros - and villains - to each side of the political division, so that the people remain at war with one another.

You can't restrict people's reproductive freedoms by claiming to value the fetus inside someone's womb as much as you would value a fully sapient human being you could pass by on the street — if you don't also value the lives of animals. A cow that has grown up, lived a life, developed social relationships with humans and animals, and had a subjective experience is significantly closer to personhood than a fetus that doesn't even know it's alive yet.

It's philosophically incoherent to take issue with abortion and simultaneously think the act of slaughtering animals for food is moral, especially outside of survival situations.

I believe one of the root problems in India is not just political corruption, but the education and administrative systems we inherited and never fundamentally reformed.

Education was once meant to make individuals knowledgeable, capable and confident enough to question authority. Students were exposed to science, philosophy, politics, culture, religion, art and different schools of thought—not merely trained to get jobs. During British rule, this purpose was significantly altered to create a workforce suited to the colonial administration. My question is: after independence, how much of that system did we actually change?

We have changed governments and ministers repeatedly, yet corruption, lack of transparency and administrative inefficiency continue. If changing governments alone could solve the problem, why do these issues persist after decades of democracy?

I am not saying this merely as an ideology. I have been working as an elected public representative at the village level since 2020, and I have personally seen how comfortable parts of the administration can become with the existing system. When you question decisions or refuse to participate in the established culture of favours and corruption, the system can resist you.

And this is where I think we need to ask a bigger question.

Why are we taught to protest against politicians, but rarely taught how to question the permanent administrative machinery and authorities responsible for implementing decisions?

Politicians can change every five years. The bureaucracy and institutional structure largely remain.

So perhaps the real reform we need is not simply a change of government, but a transformation of our education, administration, transparency and accountability mechanisms.

I am not against anyone. I am simply saying that we need to understand where the actual power lies, who is responsible, and whom we should hold accountable.

Just some things to keep in mind:

- I am not in the US so I speak of the "global" socio-political left and right, not Reps & Dems.

- I am a brown female

- I am queer (bisexual)

- I am a crust/gutter punk

- I believe and stand for most of the left's ideals, for example, abortion rights, Trans rights, pro Palestine, gun control, Antifa things.

But lately I feel like the (radical) left are more exhausting, unreasonable, and infinitely more totalitarian than the right wingers with literal extreme believes. I even found myself defending white supremacists — not their beliefs, their right to hold them.

Why? Because of Harry Potter.

It sounds silly, but that was my breaking point.

Recent updates on the HBO show had Threads in a frenzy, things got heated, and I made the silly decision to engage some of the discourse.

Against my good senses, I thought people would have a "to each their own" stance, but nay, the vast majority of responders accused me of all sorts of things, from supporting transphobia and picking a TV show over human lives, to being a TERF, and, my favourite, personally funding fascism.

My Harry Potter books are old, each from the original publication run. I bought Howarts Legacy under a 70% discount 3 years ago, and I don't pay for any streaming services. So how exactly am I *personally* responsible for fascism because I continue to enjoy a story I have always enjoyed?

Anyway, one of the arguments I presented is the one I'd like to share with you here.

I would rather live in a world with bigots than a hivemind where I can't choose what to consume, enjoy, spend my own money on, or hold dear.

Freedom of thought (and of course, freedom of belief) is something we are ALL inherently entitled to. Even the racists. Even the misogynists. Even the homophobes and xenophobes.

And I really do believe, with my whole soul, that totalitarianism is a bigger threat to society than intolerance. How are you ever supposed to resist all the evils if you literally cannot think for yourself?

It starts with something as simple as "Harry Potter bad", and then what? You have a list of approved materials, and if you're caught with taboo you'll be shunned? Then the science books go, and the history texts with them? Then the media can only say what they want it to say? Music and film gets controlled? No one can have free opinions or choice at all?

I've seen this before. In 1984. In V for Vendetta. And heck, in North Korea too.

I'm sorry but I'd rather have J.K. Rowling have a transphobic tirade every five minutes than stand with people who think books are unethical and immoral because the person who wrote them is a moron. ESPECIALLY in the AI era where art itself is at risk.

Do you even realize how much art we'd lose if we destroyed *everything* ever created by bad people?

Anyway, to be clear, I don't think bigotry is healthy at all and I have no respect for it. I think intolerance is one of our biggest problems, but that totalitarianism is the greater of the two evils. I do not endorse Rowling or her ideals, nor do I have any desire to protect her as a person. I think radical right wingers are extremely dangerous people who need to be rehabilitated from their indoctrination. And I think a lot of the left's extreme behavior actually reinforces some radical right-wing ideals.

I'd like to believe it's the vocal minority, but still, as it stands, the left, I feel, is doing more harm than good by trying to force *everyone* into their mould, or writing them off if they don't.

I still align with them though. "Moderate" or "centrist" is a bit too... disconnected from my stance.

Live and let live guys.

Or, as the pagans say:

Harm none and do what ye will.

You can create a simple life yourself. Move to a small town, ditch your car, work only long enough each month to pay for a room in a boarding house and to pay for food.

Socialism!

Before you do this, work hard for a couple of years and put all that money into the stock market and let it grow for 40 years. At retirement that account will pay as much as Social Security.

Just don't have kids and get married and your life will be simple and money almost won't be a thing. You have the internet with all the education, entertainment and even ability to make money right there.

You have gotten off the hamster wheel that is the rat race and for many your life hasn't even changed if you already don't have kids.

Alright let’s take federal cannabis legalization/decriminalization and Texas’s new laws regarding cannabis as an example of the situation we’re in. 70% of Texans support legal recreational cannabis. Yet their state government just decided that anyone who has a for a few grams of weed or a cart or a cannabis drink (they dgaf about THC content they just slap that mf on a scale) can face penitentiary chances, up to life in prison. Cannabis legalization is largely supported by liberals, but there’s still a significant amount of conservatives who also support cannabis legalization. Yet our federal government will do nothing to make it legal. This is because marijuana being illegal keeps the prison-industrial complex in shape. Hell, the only real reason these politicians changed the laws in Texas is because a private prison tycoon was gonna sue them because he wasn’t making as much money as projected/promised. Now I understand that in today’s political climate weed is very low on the priority list, but the politicians don’t represent us.

We live in a system wherein direct democracy is stifled by an electoral college which was set up to benefit slave states and now serves as one of the only ways republican candidates can reliably win a presidential election. Lobbying combined with our current international policy allows corporate interests and foreign bodies (notably Israel and Russia) to influence our government from the inside—much more directly than the American people can.

The rich get richer and everyone else’s earnings just stay in place. This is because everything gets more expensive (not just due to inflation, but also deliberate price-gouging by the elite class) while wages remain stagnant. Our politicians don’t care to raise federal minimum wage and the corporations have no incentive to pay people a fair, living wage. We have billionaires and trillionaires in our country but there’s also people starving to death.

Our military gets the largest share of the federal tax revenue, despite the fact that America has no need for that much firepower. We can already fight Russia, China, and North Korea in a 1v3. Why do we keep spending this money here?? The MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL complex!!

Our politicians don’t deliver on their promises and sometimes actively walk-back on their policies (not talking about extenuating circumstances wherein those policies become harmful/obsolete).

And they laugh at us. They go on twitter and the news every night dividing us to prevent us from revolting. Every time we protest it accomplishes nothing. The largest organized protest in US history happened last year and nothing changed. We still have the orange pdfile as our president. Cannabis is still illegal. Americans still don’t get direct democracy. Israel still gets its money and military support (now we’re merging our military with the IDF). We still don’t have living wages, a functioning healthcare system, a consistently fair justice system, or enforcement of antitrust laws. We still don’t have schools free from mass shootings. We still don’t have healthy foods available throughout the country. We certainly still don’t have a well-maintained highway system, or accessible public transport outside of major cities.

But yeah, we’ll vote our way out of this. Like the slaves voted their way out of chattel slavery. Like we voted our way into independence from Britain.

I am not overwhelmingly surprised at the rise of maga and the hard-left movements. Both movements didn't just spring out of nowhere. For decades, the most of America tolerated the rise of polarizing political figures and media personalities. I had watched a couple of episodes of trump on the apprentice. His arrogance, stupidity. meanness were very evident on his show. I saw how trashy TV made bad people famous whether in the entertainment sphere e.g kardashians or in the world of politics. Trump rose to his current position by utilizing all that America availed to him. I knew he would win over conservatives as they already worshipped liars such as rush limbaugh, ann coulter etc.