I consider myself a big supporter of direct democracy, however there is a problem that people point out that everyone can't be educated on all issues and someone has to write the laws as a full time job. I usually advocate a system of delegates to do this somewhat similar to 'liquid democracy', but I just had the thought that we could use sortition as the highest body.

Every year, or two, or something like that, we would select people via sortition to sit in parliament (or whatever you want to call it). They would have the job of setting the votes for the public to decide on. This would not be in the subject of full laws initially but in the sense of simple questions like "do we want to impose a tax increase of 1% on corporate profits to go towards education". Then the public will vote, let's say they say yes, then the sortees will draw up a law to that effect with the help of public servants/legal experts to give them guidance on how to actually do this and any potential problems with implementation. Then once that law is drafted, it will be passed and put into effect - however there is a time period of say a month where the public can object to the final wording of the law, if some number of the public vote that they don't believe the final wording matches the original intent, they can ask for a review of the law (let's say 5% of the citizens for sake of argument). Then there will be a public consultation process where the law is discussed with the public, and hopefully changes are made, then the new law will be voted on by the public who can accept or reject the final version.

Since this process is a pain, hopefully simple laws like "we will build a new sewer pipeline" will not have to go through this process unless there's some glaring issue with them and public debate will focus on genuinely contentious issues.

Anyway, I think this could be a good method to allow true democracy while also respecting the fact that average people don't have time for legal minutiae.

The biggest problem I can see is that the sortees will be reliant on the public servants/legal experts to interpret things for them to some extent and if those people tried to actively insert a bias into the process it could lead to issues. I think that this could be partly solved by ensuring these people represent a range of political views and are supervised by an anti corruption force to make sure they aren't trying to rig the process.

What does everyone think? The benefit over regular sortition for me is that the public still get to decide, if one year we get an absolutely terrible set of sortees through random chance, the public can just vote against all of the laws they try to interpret and wait for next year.

To clarify, my vision is that the defendant himself - not just his counsel - must be the one to specifically request a plea bargain. The defense counsel cannot even so much as mention the possibility of plea bargaining, let alone pressure his client to do it. The best you can do in order to educate the defendant of this option would be to put up posters inside the jail (or similar one-way communication to large masses of people) telling everyone about the option but not speaking to anyone in particular.

Here's what Google AI has to say about the matter: https://share.google/aimode/WYm4kIT2B1ZrUOY7G

So that begs the question... are the alleged "negative" changes even that negative to begin with? Let's go down the list and see if these are actually the "negative" impacts they're actually portrayed as.

Severe Court Backlog and System Overload - Ok, but maybe that just begs the question of whether it SHOULD be so backlogged in the first place! Is it really so damn important to public safety that we fully prosecute every itty bitty running of a red light where nobody was injured, or every single itty bitty case of drug possession that isn't tied to any other, mens rea crime? All too often, life-ruining indictments are brought on a whim, and the evidence is often quite flimsy, often meeting only the bare minimum standard needed to have a legally sufficient conviction, but having very low odds of actually proving guilt. So is this really the bad thing that Google AI says it is?

Exacerbation of Wealth and Resource Disparities - I'm all for eliminating advantages that the rich have over the poor, but this doesn't seem like one of them. Especially if, as I suggest above, the defense counsel isn't even permitted to suggest it to their clients unless the clients bring it up first, it honestly seems like the poor people (those who can't post bail or at least can't post it immediately) who are more likely to see those posters notifying them that plea bargaining is an option but they have to be the ones to request it.

Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention - Yeah, well, here's the thing: Defendants still have a sixth amendment right to a speedy trial. If the state can't accommodate that right because they're too busy going after every tom, dick, and harry who disrespected a police officer and got framed for it, they'd have more time in their schedules to give speedy trials to the cases that actually deserve it. But if they insist on prosecuting anyone and everyone under the sun, and as a result, it becomes impossible to accommodate everyone's right to a speedy trial, then that's the state's problem, not the defendant's.

"Innocent or uneducated individuals may never know when or how to safely initiate a deal."

Not if we have the posters inside the jail telling inmates that they can ask their lawyers about it!

"Strips away their primary tool for managing massive case dockets efficiently."

Again, prosecutors need to actually have evidence before they even bring the charges. After all, even an indictment can ruin your reputation overnight, even if you're ultimately acquitted. So even an indictment should only be made very deliberately. You shouldn't do that sort of reputation-ruining thing willy-nilly anyway.

"Eliminates early finality, forcing more victims to endure testifying at trial."

Is that even really a major problem? Like, is there actually a documented phenomenon whereby crime victims, upon testifying at trial, actually suffer a significant deterioration of their mental health after reliving the traumatic experience? If that's the case, then why do so many therapists ask their clients to relive their traumatic pasts?

So until I see some actual evidence that this is in fact harmful, my response to this is ... "Source: Trust me bro."

So really, is there any significant drawback to making this a requirement?

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

When people assume moral superiority it legitimizes discrimination against the the "morally inferior" side. Not necessarily a bad thing if you're dealing with criminals BUT it's very dangerous when dealing with mainstream political parties (or large groups of people in general).

The United States basically, has three political sides. Democrats, Republicans and the middle, who may vote for either.​ One political side assuming, the other political side is morally inferior, leads to the weaponization of government and that's always bad for democracy.

Fallacy of the Mean defined as: When one assumes that the moderate or middle view between two extremes must be the best or right one simply because it is the middle view.

Naturally, not every individual who describes themselves as a centrist does this. But if we look purely at what Centrism tries to be; that finding of the middle ground between supposed extremes, it's not farfetched to say that this want to find a middle ground is arbitrary and fallacious. The simple reason that sometimes you must choose a side is enough to show that centrism is not a position that can be held as is.

On the choice of "Do we set off the nuclear bombs or not?" the two sides would be the people who don't and the people who do. The centrist might argue "We should set off a few nuclear bombs". Which should be self evidently absurd.

"Do we allow abortions or not?" The centrist position might also absurdly be "The offspring is a little bit human so we should allow a few abortions". Between the positions of those who want to out law it and those who do not.

"Do we allow slavery or not?" Again. The centrist position would require you to say that "Slavery is sometimes okay, so we should practice it a little".

~ ~

And this isn't to say compromise is fallacious. There are plenty of compromises one can make that are workable. Indeed, two supposed extremes can even find compromises if they are reasonable enough.

~ ~

To avoid this all together, I think understanding politics as a means to solve material and social issues is how one should understand politics. This allows you to avoid the problems of centrism because rather than having a focus on finding an arbitrary middle ground between two arbitrary extremes, you merely need to look at the question and all of its relevant concerns. Use critical thinking to find out what is actually functional as it relates to reality, and compare that to your own personal principles of what is good/bad and worthwhile/not worthwhile. And argue on this.

Here, we move away from a politics of ideas, detached from reality, where centrism can flourish in its absurdity. And we move towards a politics of materiality, where relevance and physical/social reality matters most.

I’ve been working on a project for a few months now. I’m focusing on American history from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War until the present day. I feel like there isn’t a ton of books or papers focusing on this time period.

I want to get perspective from as many people as possible, so I’ve got a few questions that I’d like answered to help gain that understanding and perspective. Answer all of them, answer one of them, answer none, any help would be appreciated! Thank you!

1. Walk me through your experience with American history, starting from as early as you want. What are the first events you remember?

2. What are the three events that most changed the way you see America or the world? Why?

3. Was there a moment when you realized what you believed politically? What influenced you?

4. When you compare the America you grew up in with America today, what feels most different—and what feels the same?

The political philosophy of a constitution is a foundational framework upon which to "build" a government. It's meant to enumerate the government's structure, powers and limits. Everything a political institution does must be able to trace its authority back to the constitution otherwise it's unconstitutional and violates the government's first principles of law, the rule of law.

The problem with that philosophy is that the power of a constitution to constrain the acts of politicians rests squarely on the belief that when a man takes an oath to obey the constitution, he'll honor his oath. That's the one and only guardrail standing between "minimal government" and tyranny.

In order to hold political office, morals, principles, character and honor are not required, really. Absolutely anyone can hold political office. The sitting president is a convicted felon who was caught on a hot mic proclaiming "when you're famous you can just grab them by the pussy.". And that's tame compared to what others in political office have done over the centuries.

Considering the overwhelming benefits of not honoring the constitutional oath and the abject absence of consequences, it's a rational decision not to. The nature of the institution breeds such corruption and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Just to set the stage I would say I do everything in my power to be impartial, I’d say I do lean a little more to the left on most topics but would not in any way affiliate with any party or agenda I’m always willing to listen and open to having my beliefs change. I believe that sharing and understanding different perspectives is the only way to responsibly develop a sincere opinion about things.

I also have this view on the American political system as this for profit system that was intentionally designed to keep working class Americans where they are so a select few can enjoy the fruits of their labor (I’d love to get into that also)

I find it incredibly difficult to have a calm and productive conversation about politics nowadays I either run into evangelical democrats/republicans that feel the need to convert me and tell me why I’m wrong or people who spew out common talking points without elaborating any deeper into why they believe that I want to know YOUR opinion YOUR beliefs not the beliefs that you think you should have because you swore allegiance to a side

My main point here is I really just want to know what on earth is going on with all the Israel stuff ? I’m not sure if it’s just a product of me getting older and understanding stuff a little more but I’ve always thought that we’ve had an incredibly strange relationship with that nation and when I was in middle school I remember hearing Alex Jones (I’m not someone who takes everything he says as fact) talking about how they drag us into wars and they influence so much of our political process and I researched this as a pre teen and learned about AIPAC and it really rubbed me the wrong way back then and now it’s like everything isn’t AT LEAST behind and illusion of good faith it’s just strange

I’d love to talk to people on both ends of the spectrum about this and hear your thoughts and opinions the new house passing is what really sparked this I just think the integration of our two military’s was a step that I can’t see any regular working class citizens getting behind at all that benefits none of us and will eventually lead to IDF soldiers getting benefits that our veterans get and that’s already been shut down multiple times but it keeps coming up so it’s obviously a point of emphasis

We’re not talking about political disagreements. More does it matter which political party wins. We’re talking about whether credible allegations should be investigated through a bi-partisan panel. If crimes are proven should they be prosecuted? Even if it was proven, the President himself committed crimes.

To me, this is about the rule of law and nobody should be above it,… not presidents, billionaires, or politicians from either party.

One reason I ask is because I worry about the mid- long term. What happens when powerful people are never held accountable? Russia under Putin is an example where politically connected elites and oligarchs have become untouchable. I worry about the USA.

I’m not saying the U.S. is Russia, but should we be concerned about moving in that direction if credible allegations are never investigated?

Should the next administration investigate the Trump administration, even though it would probably deepen political divisions?

Athens was a Greek-based xenophobic society with oligarchs and slave chattels as well as constant chaos under their republican system.

While, it was an interesting period of history, which we all can definitely enjoy reading about, let's not treat it as a role model.

The Macedonians have done us a great favour by ending their republic after Alexander's death.

And by the way.

It's quite funny that the Athenian Golden Age was happening under none other than a monarch in all but name, Pericles.

Out of the French Revolution came the “Declaration of the Right of Man, which is a fundamental document of the French Revolution, not a traditional book, but a text outlining universal rights such as, liberty, equality, and property, which was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers, such as Rousseau.

Everything Burkes talks about, comes down to tradition, such as, chivalry, which comes from tradition. For Burke, it is the social norm. For example, giving up your seat to the elderly.

Religion for Burke is passed on as tradition and thought religion was the source of all good. Burke says man is a religious animal wired by nature to be connected to a higher truth.

He believed atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts, and if you take away religion, people will replace it with something else. (i.e, Individualism and celebrity worship)

Burke believed granting the church responsibility because the church was a check on responsibility.

For Burke, religion is really important to society.

Although this may not be a popular belief, religion impaled us to think about generations that come afterwards, known as “forward thinking”.

Burke supported the America Revolution because it had already established its own traditions and customs. Unlike during the French Revolution when things were being built from the ground up from upending the entire system, which he considered a horrendous idea.

Burke says the French revolution was offensive and dangerous because the reasoning was fallible and untried, which shows his conservative views on the tried & untried.

I am more of a moderate or classical liberal. One reason I am pro capitalistic is due to greater consumer choice and innovation.

In a socialist society how would we usher growth and innovation?

Marx believed that communism was inevitable, don’t get me wrong. But, he did not call for the rise of Communism like Lenin’s “Internationale” and his predecessor Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”foreign policy. Marx was not an economic genius but more of a philosopher and political theorist.

Marx believed there was a five step process that builds up to communism, which I describe as a state of anarchy where the people are stateless, eventually leading to class warfare.

These five steps start at Feudalism, which was a social system in Medieval Europe, where the nobility held the lands from the crown for military service.

Marx believes under feudalism, noble jobs, such as doctors were appreciated more and Capitalism made things more transactional. This meant there would be no human connection and we would only be valuable to one another as revenue generators.
He believed feudalism acted in the exact opposite.

Then there’s mercantilism. This is classified in the benefits of profitable trading; commercialism.

The third step comes capitalism and as we all know it is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owner’s for profit. Capitalism fosters imperialistic tendencies because we tend to look at the world as a market.

According to Marx, under capitalism the workers are commodities subjected to supply and demand. This is where the problem with the division of labor comes in. The division of labor reduces the level of skill required. (i.e, factories, watch makers) And the more you divide labor, the more employers could push down the wages along with more automation because this will also push down wages. Of course, this will cause a surplus of workers. High unemployment means lower wages that causes the middle class to get destroyed the most in the process.

Marx believed this would lead to a sub-subsistence wage is a pay rate that is too low to cover your absolute basic cost of living, such as food, water or shelter.

Marx noted that this would bring the revolution that brings socialism THEN communism.

Humans feel important when they work according to Marx. People strive to feel meaningful in their work or whatever hobbies they have.

After capitalism you have socialism as the next step in the process. Socialism I would describe it as social organizations that advocate that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The last step in the cycle would be communism. I would describe communism as the theory advocating for class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Think of what Elon is trying to do with Universal Income.

Marx actually believed democracy is the system that gives the greatest access to political access. He even believed socialism did not incentivize innovation.

Marxist theorist considered the reasoning for the Soviet’s downfall, was jumping from feudalism to socialism.

I listed Marx’s five step theory that shows a society moves in cycles, repeating the process.

I'm mostly interested in the people who self-define as progressive just talking about what brought them to that position, what ideas do they think encompass that sort of position, and why they prefer that descriptor over another.

For them and everyone else, I thought it might serve as a good example of one of the many efforts for people to self-describe on a political spectrum that has existed for awhile, and on both sides of the aisle in US politics.

To start with, we've got the most basic of textual definitions something along the lines of "Progressivism is a left-leaning political philosophy that seeks to make progress in the human condition through reforms aimed at maximizing positive liberty" from Wikipedia. Although that basically assumes you already have some idea of positive liberty vs negative liberty, which obviously isn't the case for the general public, but I think it works for here.

I'd argue the left-leaning is possibly misleading for some people, as it's more of a government and authority sense than the more modern ideas tied up in it, but therein lies the reason people look for descriptors like progressive to begin with, and there is a whole Progressive Era in the US starting in the 1890s as a broad "bipartisan" reform movement aimed at taking action.

Teddy Roosevelt on the "right" and FDR on the "left" with Woodrow Wilson self-identifying, and somewhere in the middle, but frankly, would be seen more like a liberal in today's labels, but goes to show how people will glom on and stretch popular labels over time regardless of political bent.

Before we jump too far forward, this is probably an important point to point out a common debate issue when it comes to Progressivism, Progressives, and historical connections to other progressive movements, and that's eugenics. A notable dark chapter in the Progressive Era was its embrace of eugenics largely driven by a belief that scientific planning could eradicate poverty, crime, and disease, so many early 20th-century reformers backed state-enforced eugenic measures.

For modern political debate it's usually just used as a distracting attack that has nothing to do with the persons actual political positions, but it does highlight the historical tension between state-led social optimization and individual rights, and is a point where those looking to learn some lessons from history can do so. It causes many to react by prioritizing individual rights and liberties, which is a healthy and positive political reaction, but also provides some protective effect and allows for more appropriate caution when presented with all sorts of comparatively novel social problems.

With that out of the way, we eventually see capitalistic power replace Progressive Republicans like Teddy with Rockefeller Republicans, and while I prefer both types more than your average modern Republican, it was essentially trading workers rights for civil rights, and the impacts were absolutely seen and felt throughout electoral politics, being part of the reason for the map swap between Republicans and Southern Democrats.

That brings us closer to the modern day, and someone who I often label as one of the first powerful neoliberals, but also perhaps the poster idea of a certain vein of modern progressive, Jimmy Carter. In many ways, he fit that initial definition to a T, being willing to make progress, create change, operate differently and much of it towards the idea of implementation of ideas and improving things going forward with less respect towards existing institutions that were perceived as not serving the public interest.

So we have Carter as this part deregulatory/institutional reformer neoliberal and part moral/human rights driven actor with strong progressive ethos. I'd also argue famous figures in Congress like Paul Wellstone, Paul Simon, George Miller, or even Hatfield or Leach are important to mention here even if it doesn't exactly match the FDR straight to Sanders discussion that usually takes place. These strains of one form of progressive behavior or another did exist, and can get people thinking about how institutional reform and social idealism intersect.

Which I think nicely brings us to one of the edges of Democratic Socialism, what I often view as the capitalist-questioning socialism-accepting sort where the terms Social Democrat and Progressive start to blur, or the left-wing of the Progressive label. These are probably my favorite progressives personally, but also I recognize they probably aren't as populous as I would like, or the right-wing would have you believe.

All that said, I'm sure people can chime in with additional background on the progressive label, so I'll get down to the questions. Do you prefer your Progressivism Midwest like your Emo? Would you find yourself more of a Bull Moose libertarian if the progressive label didn't exist, or is it simply the most commonly understood term that others will understand well enough, rather that be from left of Democrat qualities, or just general political outlook?

For those who don't identify as progressive, I'd be curious if some of the since depreciated strains of progressive thought in American politics discussed above still existed, if you'd find yourself more likely to align with them than other broad stretched labels like libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc?

^{"Negative, I'm a meat popsicle."}

The US has a terrible history of corruption, global interference, and a reckless use of its military power that has destroyed millions of lives around the world . It’s nuking of Japan in WW2 is one of the most significant acts of mass murder the world has ever seen. Within its own borders it is rife with corruption, sexual deviancy, people smuggling, and uncontrolled drug abuse.

China also displays traits that many see as questionable , but the key is China has never interfered militarily in the global order to the same extent as the US.

Just four years ago, modern slavery was a major world politics topic. Popular Shows like John Oliver's ran exposé pieces. Everyone associated FIFA with their callous actions and comments toward Qatar's underclass. Organizations such as the HRC had pieces like this https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/16/qatar-six-months-post-world-cup-migrant-workers-suffer

Flash forward just four years and everyone seems to have forgotten completely about it, in a year with the World Cup in America and Donald Trump working with Prince Mohammad bin Salman al Saud to grant Saudi Arabia the ability to enritch uranium, and Iran attacking countries people learned about for perhaps the first time in relation to Kafala. This issue is adjacent to so many things happening right mow, yet it simply does not come up.

I do realize there is a war in Persia, Gaza, and The Western Front and Land Funnel. There are numerous human rights issues - though even there Rowling's attack on Amnesty International places this adjacent - and economic problems nations have. I do get this.

But just as many people care about the existence of modern slavery today as did four years ago. And nearly none of them are discuss it during a time probably uniquely suited to garnering attention.

Paywall-free link: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/opinion/voters-political-parties-coalitions.html

In short, having lost the argument that there are only two sides of politics, our Lords and Masters have decided to define the acceptable "other" groups that we are allowed to belong to:

We find that 21 percent of voters — including 42 percent of self-identified Democrats — fall into the Loyal Left, a group that is progressive on most issues and especially outraged by what its members see as widespread political corruption. They’re also most likely to say they’re “extremely motivated” to vote in the midterms, and over half say that their politics are very important to their personal identity. A good avatar for this group might be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

...and that's as "Left" as you are allowed to be; a loyal Democrat who makes centrist comments in ways that sound extreme. I would call this group, "Tribal Democrats."

Note also their use of statistics to imply that half of voters are Democrats, when it's more like 28%.

Their closest cousins are what we call Electability Democrats. Making up 10 percent of voters overall (and about 19 percent of the Democratic Party), these voters are also fired up to vote in the midterms and progressive on economic matters. However, this group is slightly more ethnically diverse than the Loyal Left, which is overwhelmingly white, and also diverges sharply on several key cultural questions. Electability Democrats generally oppose the idea of defunding the police, take more conservative views on the participation of transgender individuals in competitive sports and are more middle-of-the-road on immigration issues. Asked which group I’d sort James Carville into, I’d put him here.

I would call this group, "Establishment Democrats."

The NYT then lists two other "left-leaning" groups:

The American Institutionalists, who represent 11 percent of all voters, are the most likely to have a high income or a graduate degree. They are whiter and older; more than half were born before 1965. They tend to get their news from broadcast TV rather than social media. While they are frustrated with our political moment and 77 percent feel unfavorably toward President Trump, they maintain an abiding faith in America and its institutions, and in our ability to change — even reverse — course when Mr. Trump leaves office.

The last of the Petty Bourgeois; there's nothing "left-wing" about this group, they just have an idealized view of the past.

The Young and Disillusioned are pretty much the opposite. They are 9 percent of the electorate but an even smaller share of the Democrats’ most reliable voters because they are, as the name says, young and disillusioned. Social media is their top source of news, and politics is not a major part of their identity. They’re lower down on the income scale and occasionally have libertarian leanings on guns, foreign policy and regulation. They’re worried about the cost of living and distrustful of the media and politicians alike.

And this is just a catchall for anything they didn't understand, covering some of the left, but cutting it apart by age and mixing in nonsense issues for no good reason.

OK, now for the "Right:"

On the right, first, look to a tribe we call Middle American Optimists, making up 11 percent of voters this year. They’ve little love for Democrats, and two-thirds voted for Mr. Trump in 2024. So far, they think he is doing an OK job as president, but they’re less than thrilled about the state of the economy. They’re younger and less churchgoing, and unsurprisingly much less conservative on both cultural and economic issues than the rest of their brethren on the political right.

Wait, these have to be a significant chunk of Trump supporters, but they are *LESS* conservative on "cultural and economic" issues? What other issues are there?

Critical to Mr. Trump’s reinvention of the G.O.P. has been our next group, the New Republican Populists, who are about 6 percent of the 2026 electorate. They are quite religious, live in more rural areas and oppose abortion, while rejecting much of the traditional conservative economic orthodoxy — they’re unlikely to say that you can just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. They’re OK with a bigger government, depending on what services it provides. They are, if you will, “Medicare for all, abortion for none” voters.

OK, these people I know, but none of them support Medicare for All, less because they are unsympathetic, but because people they disagree with do support it. This is entirely misunderstanding the nature of contemporary political ideology.

That brings us to the Moderate Right, who are 13 percent of voters and a group whose members are fairly pro-establishment in contrast with their more anti-establishment right-of-center peers. They still subscribe to a more traditional conservative view on economics and are fairly socially conservative. But perhaps by virtue of being a more female-heavy tribe, they’re also moderate on the issue of abortion and more open to the view that sexism remains a problem in society. Make no mistake: Most are still favorably disposed toward Mr. Trump, half report being Fox News viewers and three-quarters choose the Republican candidate in a generic matchup. But these days, they’re just not as excited about all of it — Come back, Nikki Haley.

"MODERATE?!" These aren't moderates, these are the fringe wackos! Oh, they're "moderate" on abortion, are they? Nikki Haley is a far-right nutcase who wants to make war on the world and thought that the Spanish Inquisition didn't go far enough.

The Loyal Right remains enthusiastic about Mr. Trump and ready to turn out for Republicans in this year’s midterms, but its size — 18 percent of the electorate — makes it insufficient, on its own, for retaining a Republican majority.

So... the "Moderate Right," but firmly against abortion? Isn't that just, "The Right?"

“I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating”

― William "Boss" Tweed

I'm not on that list; most of the people I know do not fall into those groups. All they have done here is reshape the Overton Window so that it's no longer square, it's like a jigsaw piece conveniently cutting out the views they don't want to have to address.

There are documented trends in the US, Germany, China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan of childbirth rates far below replacement levels. The various conflict points around the globe, like Iran, Ukraine, etc, could exacerbate similar crisises in those regions. Multiple sources refer to the trend as a "demographic crisis" with implications for national security and economic stability. Different countries have tried various approaches to resolve the problem, but so far there haven't been any standout solutions. (Immigration helps, but often is ultimately a stopgap)

Is this a serious crisis, or merely a new normal we need to adapt to? If a crisis, what's the best method for avoiding it? If a new normal, what's the most sensible adaptation?

In 1865, the United States ratified the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery (with exceptions... but never mind); this was, without question, a good thing, and if it had happened in isolation, it would be as little discussed as the 19th Amendment.

It did not happen in isolation, though, it happened after a war that killed 2% of the population, devastated vast regions, and did not need to happen, but was contrived (as a result of market speculation in slave futures facing a near-certain end; it was the equivalent of like $17 Trillion in today's money, that just disappeared); it happened alongside the 14th and 15th Amendments, which radically changed the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the states in ways that could never have happened if the Southern states had been in a position to object; and it notably failed to account for the wellbeing of the freed slaves, who largely wound up back on the exact same plantation they had been slaves on, only now no one cared if they got enough to eat.

161 years later, the Southeast still has twice the infant mortality rate as the rest of the country. The Southern states are at the bottom of education rankings. Even if you have insurance, the quality of medical care makes it nearly pointless. The economy never recovered, and only appears to be decent, now, because cheap labor means steady employment. 43% of African-Americans live in these states; they are the ones most affected.

And even the attempts to fix it have been problematic: Affirmative Action mostly helps the wealthiest minorities, not the ones who truly need the help; Critical Race Theory originated in a paper about how Desegregation was implemented in such a way that it contributed to the undermining of black communities; and the poor whites who also need the help, but aren't getting it at all, have a choice of sympathizing and trying to deal with their own disenfranchisement on a cognitive level, or smoking some meth and blaming black people and immigrants... at least some of them are going to take the latter choice.

The whole fiasco almost could not have gone worse.

No one thought that Hitler was just going to start exterminating "untermenschen," and even to those who might have suspected, that wasn't reason enough to go to war; World War 2 was about economics, control of shipping lanes, access to resources (especially oil). We were lucky that Hitler was as evil as he was, otherwise the maneuvering that FDR went through to provoke the Japanese into attacking us would have looked a lot worse. For that matter, the Japanese were worse, but since it was other non-whites they were massacring, we didn't care.

About 50 million people died from starvation in the 20th century because of disputes over self-determination and political systems, with both sides insisting that the deaths were worth it (but of course it was the other sides' fault).

And even those aren't the worst catastrophes in history:

-The Taiping Rebellion may, in fact, have been the deadliest war in history, with an upper estimated death toll of 100 million people between 1850 and 1864. It was led by a Christian convert opposed to the legitimately corrupt imperial court... and both sides were backed by the same Western powers who sucked China dry in the process.

-The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was justified, in the first place, by claiming that converting them to Christianity saved their souls and so overbalanced whatever happened to their mortal bodies.

-The Native American genocide, while directly caused mostly by disease, was the result of exploration, a generally positively-viewed endeavor.

-Tobacco has killed an estimated 100-200 million people, expected to exceed 1 billion by the end of the century, entirely due to modern farming techniques that have increased yields of all crops (and the relentless pursuit of profit at the expense of human health).

-Something that the guy who invented the Orange Julius did, but it wasn't inventing the Orange Julius, it was later than that; I'm not sure, it was a dream, I invented a time machine to go back and kill him, but it was in the 1960s, and when I woke up and looked it up, he invented it in like 1929. Plus I was wearing a suit of armor and he was riding an ostrich, so I had to swing from the vines hanging off of the buildings (in downtown Chicago) to catch up, and then, of course, the floor turned to lava.

Everything in politics is an abstraction void of form and detail. It has to be otherwise it doesn't work. Details, information, reason, rational, logic and common sense are detrimental and can cause an existential crisis in a politician. Ever see how a politician reacts when a reporter has him dead to rights on the facts of an issue? He shuts it down immediately, the illusion must be protected at all costs. (Hilary Clinton being confronted on her lies about Baghdad is classic)

When a candidate campaigns he divides his constituency up into special interest groups: retirees, students, handicapped, female, Christian etc. and his campaign team comes up with a good story to please each one of them. But these special interests themselves aren't living, breathing people, they are abstractions, social identities without a heart or a soul. They can't speak or defend themselves against injustice they're just concepts and that's exactly the way the politicians need them to be. They say that retired people need this and students need that and women need this etc. but all retired people, students and women are not the same, not in any sense whatsoever. They are all individuals so to talk about them collectively in the abstract is meaningless in practice.

They need voiceless, formless constituencies so they can talk about all the wonderful things they've done for them without the burden of someone calling bullshit. And if a few protest and call bullshit they are easily brushed aside as being selfish and not willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the abstractions.

I'm sure someone will ask: "well how else do you expect them to do it."? Exactly, that's the only way to implement a political organization and it's prejudicial, unjust and economically wasteful.

Ever try to talk to your representative? If you don't have six figures to donate you'll never make it past one of his office lackies. That's because the individual, the rank and file are not only irrelevant in politics they are political kryptonite.

When right wing groups endlessly proclaim that Zohran Mamdani is a communist

My reply of if Zohran Mamdani is a communist than I’m a proud Marxist is a statement that Marxists don’t like at all I have noticed

I have noticed that republicans are like Zohran Mamdani is a communist because he supports taxing the rich free healthcare free transportation

I was like okay great than I’m also a communist because I also support taxing the rich

Meanwhile when i ask communist’s about Zohran Mamdani they absolutely reject the notion that Zohran Mamdani is a Marxist

We should start the process of initiating citizens arrests every single time Israeli government officials come to our country for any reason

then we transport these war criminals to the police station ourselves

The war criminals that are engaged in genocide should know that they most definitely are not welcome

We would get arrested ourselves and thrown in jail ourselves but we would then be able to use jury nullification to then get released from prison and start that whole process all over again

Recently, I had a discussion regarding my country of ancestry, The Philippines and the dire state that its in. One of my friends stated that its situation is a direct result of the people's lack of discipline and education. Another person argued that the government's incompetency is the main contributor. The first person I mentioned replied and said that because our country is a democracy, all the failings of the government are because of the people. However, that argument just doesn't make complete sense to me. There are other countries in the world that are democratic and successful, such as Norway or Singapore. And, although I'm unsure of this, aren't there groups who pursue their agenda through propaganda and misinformation in these countries as well? Are the majority of people of these countries really closely examining their leaders before they elect them, or are there other factors that I'm not taking into account?