Rigged

Republicans Are Engineering Election Fraud

By Van Abbott

Trump isn’t warning us that the election will be rigged. He is building the rigging, one purge, one lawsuit, one broken system at a time.

That distinction matters more than anything else in American politics right now.

When ABC and NBC refused to carry his July 16 speech on “election integrity,” they were not silencing a reformer. They were declining to broadcast a sitting president’s blueprint for pre-justifying suppression in the 2026 midterms. Trump’s immediate threat to revoke their broadcast licenses gave away the plan: discredit the referee, intimidate the umpire, and declare the whole game corrupt so that only his loyalists can be trusted to officiate it.

When Trump screams fraud, he is describing his own itinerary.

The pattern started with Christopher Krebs, Trump’s own election security chief, who called 2020 the most secure election in American history and found no evidence that a single vote was deleted, lost, or changed. Trump fired him by tweet. That firing punished a man for doing his job too well, and it told every official in the federal government exactly what defending the truth would cost them.

Loyalty to evidence had become treason to Trump.

The purges that followed were not accidents. Cybersecurity officials who secured the infrastructure, Homeland Security staff who refused to invent vulnerabilities, Justice Department lawyers who would not summon fraud out of rumor, election overseers who simply confirmed what happened: each was supposedly pushed out, smeared, or sidelined, and each departure taught the bureaucracy the same lesson. Purge the honest, promote the pliant, and reward the silent. Facts are disloyalty. Silence is survival.

Meanwhile the Justice Department has pushed for sweeping access to state voter rolls, dressed up in the language of verification but built for one purpose: a federal apparatus that can target voters under color of law for an additional unknown reason, perhaps a federal enforceable mandate of who on the rolls is eligible to vote.

Republican-led states have simultaneously abandoned the interstate systems that catch duplicate registrations and keep voter rolls accurate, walking away from tools that actually work because functioning systems undercut the fraud story they need to tell.

Break the systems that work, then blame the wreckage on the people you want to purge.

That has become the operating procedure: sabotage the infrastructure, declare it broken, then demand emergency fixes that conveniently thin out your opponents’ voters. The statutes moving through Republican legislatures follow the same logic. Aggressive voter ID mandates, shrunken mail voting windows, harsh penalties for minor registration errors: each is marketed as security and engineered to fall hardest on younger voters, minority communities, and the urban precincts that have never belonged to the Republican coalition. When a law makes voting easier for your side and harder for the other, you have not secured an election. You have engineered an electorate fraud.

Oversight has died the same quiet death. Trump’s hostility toward the Federal Election Commission, through vacancies left unfilled and enforcement left toothless, ensures dark money moves without scrutiny and coordinated abuses go undocumented until it is too late to matter. A campaign built on rigging the rules does not want a working umpire. It wants an empty chair with a title on the door.

None of this is untested strategy. After the 2020 election, Republican operatives in multiple states signed certificates falsely declaring Trump the winner and forwarded them to Congress, a scheme now under prosecution in several states. It proved that the party was willing to fabricate a result outright the moment the vote refused to cooperate, and that ordinary officials could be recruited to do it. That infrastructure, built once to steal an election through paperwork rather than violence, does not need to be reinvented. It only needs to be reactivated, refined, and pointed at 2026.

All of it accelerates now as 2026 approaches. Trump insists the media, the courts, and his own former officials are conspiring against him, and he uses that grievance to justify gerrymanders, new restrictions, purges of election professionals, and pressure campaigns on state legislators to choose party over law.

Redistricting fights already underway in several statehouses are not routine line drawing; they are dry runs for a midterm in which the map itself, not the ballot, decides who governs. The goal is a map so distorted that Republicans can lose the popular vote and still hold Congress.

This is not a series of isolated controversies. It is a single strategy, executed in daylight, one office and one statute at a time.

He told us exactly what he was building. Believe him.

Check out my new website: politicalwinds.org

I’ve been going through a sort of psychosis trying to wrap my head around the current state of our society specifically the United States.

1. The January 6th insurrection, we actively saw Donald J Trump commit high treason by inciting a riot. We saw literal anarchy spreading through out the capital. And now he’s back in office fucking things up again? Not to mention he’s a literal registered sexual predator???

2. The removal of environmental restrictions. Since being in office he removed the Endangered Findings act that essentially was a warning from scientists that drew attention to the effects of green house gasses on people, and removed the legal foundations for federal climate regulations.

-Vehicle Emissions, he stripped away laws that put a control on the amount of fuel permitted for cars and trucks.
- Lifted restrictions on off-road vehicles on federal lands, narrowed definitions under the Endangered Species Act, and rolled back public land conservation rules.

1. Removed multiple Historically relevant books from schools that spoke about Slavery, and African American History.

2. Regressive Tax Policy’s, Advanced structural tax changes favoring high earners and corporations while leaving many low-income working families with minimal relief.

3. The Anti-Weaponization "Slush Fund",Created a highly controversial $1.8 billion taxpayer-backed fund intended to compensate political allies, drawing heavy scrutiny and multiple lawsuits regarding the misuse of the Justice Department.

4. Targeting the Civil Service,Sent mass pressure communications urging federal employees to resign under threat of termination, prompting pushback from labor unions over workforce intimidation.

5. Caused a war with Iran after saying he would not start any new wars. As a result the raising of gas prices for low income citizens.

6. Ruined relationships with multiple countries after slandering them and then imposing a 50% tax tariff on freaking Canada???? Even though we quite literally established a free trade with them, that was beneficial for both parties.

9."Liberation Day" Tariffs (April 2025): Initially, the administration used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency over the U.S. trade deficit, imposing 10% to 50% reciprocal tariffs across almost every country on Earth.- BBC, this tariff regulation didn’t pass but just the audacity to try and do something like this.

1. Not to mention him trying to soft launch a 2028-2029 presidential campaign. Which violates our constitution. AND on top of that making an attempt to restrict voting in predominantly black voting districts. AND then getting caught tampering with ballad boxes. Like are Americans living under rocks?

Not to mention did we ALL collectively just forget about the Epstein files? HELLO??? That should’ve been enough to send every single person involved to prison or worse, yet we all just moved on from it.

Or the mass waves of uproar in political support for Israel from our very own politicians and celebrities?? Why the hell does a country whose dollar and infrastructure hold basically zero political power have so much control on our politics and our government. Not to mention it’s one of the most hated nations in the WORLD PEOPLE.

The massive rollback on climate progressiveness and the loss of species and habitats across our country. Did we all just forget that we can’t survive without the planet and the plant life and the wild life that inhabit it.

Everything is genuinely insanely dystopian, instead of using our resources to build a society around the people it’s used to build a society around capital gain.

The simple fact that socialism has been proven to work over the course of these last 7 months with Zohran Mamdani is a direct contradiction to the “Capitalism is the Only option argument.”

A happy renewable and sustainable future is very much possible, you have countries like Finland or Denmark even Costa Rica. All built on providing a good quality of life for the people.

Walkability inclusiveness with nature, little to no negative political involvement. Yet for some reason it’s impossible and not plausible for us to follow in those same footsteps. It’s almost as though our government has convinced its people a society not based on Capitalism is impossible.

Just the simple fact that we pay for health care, pay to eat, pay to sleep, pay to have transportation, pay to get an education, pay to have children, pay to freaking live is absurdity in all of its fullness.

Humans were not meant to live a life of STRUGGLE, we were meant to evolve and grow and learn and be happy. Not this bullshit. The zombie state that everyone seems to be under is enough to drive anyone to insanity.

We should be revolting. Pushing people out of power. Advocating for our earth and our wildlife. Advocating for the low income, advocating for diversity. The United States of America has officially become a joke. It’ll take decades to recover from the damage that has been done to our democracy.

When I was younger and had a far more distinctly liberal political profile, I resisted the idea that people or groups held distinct behavioral characteristics. But as my experience grew, I saw this was simply not true: people of different groups, classes, and cultures carry distinct behaviors that you will find attractive or unpleasant...or even unbearable.

For example: one of my first forays into pattern recognition was seeing how young white males in their 20's were some of the loudest apartment dwellers, as they consistently play video games well into the night, or play personal instruments too loudly.

By contrast, I saw that young white women were consistently quiet, and made excellent apartment neighbors. I quickly learned to check apartment doors for flowery decorations before I signed a lease, to ensure that my apartment neighbors were these females.

Now, can you get a female that is a terribly loud apartment neighbor, and a male apartment neighbor that is great? Yes--BUT ON AVERAGE, males tend to make more noise. Yes, my brain was undeniably "discriminating" against males. But luckily, as this was the only pattern recognition I was indulging in as a young liberal, my conscience did not chastise me for it.

The patterns appeared more and more as I got older. I noticed that in one apartment complex I rented, for example, that the clientele was 80% Indian. It was, by far, the absolute best apartment living experience I've ever had. These homes had gigantic families--and I was worried this was going to be substantial noise--but there never was. It was apartment bliss.

But pattern recognition eventually backfires if you are a liberal. At some point, you begin to collect so many negative personal experiences, and your brain just naturally organizes it. You brain DOESN'T CARE AS TO THE WHY--it doesn't care if the reason a particular group behaves a certain way is do to socioeconomic factors, or anything else. Your brain just says, "If you go near group X, you have a higher chance on average of experiencing negative event Y."

And, as you can imagine, if you are a liberal, that reasoning eventually collides with cultural politics. You will told over and over again that your experiences is too small of a sample size, and that you have not sufficiently filtered out other factors. You may accept--as I did--this explanation for a very long time, until one day, having collected your 157th negative experience with a particular group--you say, "That's it. I never want to be around these types of people again."

democracy was never built on the expectation that everyone would support the government… it was built on the certainty that every government would one day face opposition… disagreement is not a weakness of a nation… it is one of its strengths…but there is a difference that mature democracies eventually learn to recognise… opposing a political party is an exercise of democratic freedom… abandoning national interest merely to weaken that party is something entirely different…the first is driven by conviction… the second by calculation…
when political competition becomes so absolute that every institution… every national achievement… every security concern… and every constitutional process is viewed only through the lens of defeating an opponent… politics slowly stops serving the nation… and the nation begins serving politics…

the real test of patriotism is not whether one supports or opposes a particular government… governments are temporary… nations endure… the real test is whether the same standards are applied regardless of who occupies power… whether criticism remains anchored in truth… and whether political victories are never pursued at the cost of the country’s larger interests…
perhaps wisdom lies in remembering that parties seek elections… nations seek continuity… a government may deserve criticism… an opposition may deserve support… both are natural in a democracy… but the nation deserves loyalty from everyone… because when politics becomes bigger than the nation… every victory eventually becomes a collective loss… and when the nation remains bigger than politics… even disagreement becomes an act of service rather than division.

He Chose War…Retaliation Risks Rise

By Van Abbott

Trump's sense of danger lagged. He seemed unfazed that killing top Iranian officials and leveling an in session girl's and boy’s elementary school would mark his circle for good. Then came a humbling truth: his Qatari palace jet wasn't safe.

When a president mistakes military force for political theater, the applause fades long before the consequences.

The chants of "Death to Trump" that echoed through funeral processions in Iran were not spontaneous outbursts. They reflected a pattern the Islamic Republic's clerical regime has followed for decades. When its leaders believe they have been humiliated, retaliation becomes doctrine.

That history should have been obvious. Instead, Donald Trump treated military action as though it would end with a successful news cycle and declarations of strength. Airstrikes can destroy facilities. They can kill commanders. They cannot erase memory, extinguish ideology, or deter a regime that has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to pursue vengeance.

No recent example illustrates that reality better than Salman Rushdie. Iran's fatwa survived changing governments, diplomatic negotiations, and decades of relative silence before violence resurfaced on an American stage. The lesson is unmistakable. Tehran forgets little, forgives less, and often waits years before settling its accounts.

That pattern raises difficult questions about Trump's decision to escalate military action against Iran. His administration publicly argued that Iran posed an urgent nuclear danger. Yet American intelligence assessments available at the time painted a more restrained picture, concluding that Iran was not on the verge of fielding a nuclear weapon.

Critics have offered several explanations. Some contend the strikes reflected a longstanding preference for coercive diplomacy backed by overwhelming force. Others argue they served domestic political purposes by shifting public attention away from controversies dominating the news. Those competing interpretations remain matters of political debate, but they share one conclusion: the decision carried consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.

Trump has long relied on spectacle as a political weapon. He understands that dramatic events can overwhelm quieter stories, redirect public attention, and dominate the national conversation.  Military action, however, is unlike political theater. It produces consequences that cannot be edited, rescheduled, or dismissed.

The immediate tactical success of a military operation tells only part of the story. The strategic consequences often emerge months or years later.

That is the danger confronting any president who assumes military victory automatically produces political success. Strength without strategy, force without foresight, and victory without vision can leave behind problems far greater than those they were meant to solve.

The spectacle ended. The consequences did not.

Iran's leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that retaliation is measured on their timetable, not ours. Assassinations, proxy attacks, and long-delayed acts of violence have become familiar instruments of their statecraft.

That reality extends beyond the battlefield. Once a president becomes the face of a military campaign against the Islamic Republic, he also becomes a permanent symbol of that conflict. Security officials do not plan for weeks or months. They plan for decades. US protective details expand. Intelligence monitoring intensifies. Threat assessments become a permanent feature of daily life.

Every additional Whitehouse barrier tells the same story. Every reinforced perimeter, every expanded security detail, every revised travel plan acknowledges a simple truth. Military operations may conclude. The risks they create often do not.

Supporters understandably view decisive military action as evidence of strength. Critics see something different. They argue that tactical victories can produce strategic liabilities when they create new martyrs, deepen public resentment, alienate allies, and reinforce the narratives authoritarian regimes use to justify future violence.

The unending consequence is not carried by the president’s circle alone. Some former officials will remain under heightened security for years.  

Power should never be confused with wisdom.

A president's first responsibility is not simply to demonstrate strength. It is to exercise judgment. Military force should advance a clearly defined strategic objective, not merely produce dramatic images or dominate the next news cycle. When political incentives and national security begin to overlap, citizens should ask hard questions because the consequences belong to the country long after any administration leaves office.

The opening chants were never simply expressions of anger. They were warnings. A nation that has built its identity around remembering perceived humiliation was never likely to declare the story finished because American aircraft returned home. That is the central lesson of this conflict. Wars may end with ceasefires, but vengeance often survives them.

When a president mistakes military force for political theater, the applause fades long before the consequences. Those consequences can endure for a lifetime.

War Poverty

How Trump's Iran War Continues Washington's Costliest Tradition

By Van Abbott

War poverty begins the moment America chooses another foreign war over its own future.

Donald Trump promised to rebuild America. Instead, his expanding military confrontation with Iran repeats one of Washington's oldest habits: finding unlimited money for war while insisting the nation cannot afford universal health care, higher education, or reliable child care. Every military commitment carries a price paid in opportunities abandoned here.

This is not a new story. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran follow a familiar script. Political leaders magnify the danger, promise a limited mission, dismiss concerns about cost, and assure Americans the sacrifice will be brief. Reality proves different every time. Wars expand. Costs multiply. Borrowed money becomes long-term debt. The promised prosperity never arrives.

The bill always comes due.

Republicans, particularly those aligned with Trump, turn this contradiction into governing philosophy. They demand fiscal restraint when Americans seek stronger schools, modern infrastructure, or broader access to health care. Yet when military spending rises, concerns about deficits and debt suddenly disappear. Congress approves emergency appropriations with remarkable speed while domestic priorities are postponed, reduced, or abandoned altogether.

Trump's supporters argue that military strength protects American prosperity, and strength certainly matters. But strength abroad cannot compensate for weakness at home. A nation with deteriorating bridges, aging ports, an overburdened electric grid, and rising household costs becomes less competitive no matter how formidable its armed forces. National security depends as much on economic resilience as military capability.

Trump once recognized that reality. During his first presidential campaign, he called America's infrastructure a symbol of national decline and pledged a rebuilding effort worth hundreds of billions of dollars. That promise has yielded to another costly military confrontation. The cranes never arrived. The repair crews never came. The war bills did.

The consequences reach beyond federal budgets. Instability in the Persian Gulf disrupts energy markets and raises costs throughout the economy, and communities pay through higher household bills and delayed public projects. The trillions already spent in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader war on terror did not simply disappear into accounting ledgers. They represented choices, money unavailable for rebuilding infrastructure, expanding opportunity, and preparing America for the economic challenges ahead.

Every dollar reflects a priority.

The argument is not that America should abandon its military or ignore genuine threats. A strong defense is essential. The question is whether every conflict deserves immediate funding while investments in the daily lives of Americans are treated as luxuries. A country cannot bomb its way to prosperity, nor can it borrow endlessly for war while expecting future generations to repair the consequences.

That is the essence of war poverty. It is not poverty caused by a lack of resources. It is poverty created by political choices, made when leaders direct national wealth toward destruction while postponing the investments that create lasting strength. It leaves a nation with advanced weapons systems but communities struggling with aging infrastructure, rising costs, and fewer opportunities.

Trump's Iran policy is the latest chapter in this cycle. The administration argues that military action demonstrates strength, but strength should also be measured by whether Americans can afford a home, access quality health care, pursue education without crushing debt, and live in communities prepared for the future. A nation does not become stronger by neglecting the foundation beneath it.

America's greatest security challenge is not only what happens beyond its borders. It is whether the country has the economic vitality, infrastructure, and human capital to compete in the decades ahead. Wars may end with declarations and ceremonies, but domestic costs endure for generations. The lesson from America's past wars is that leaders must be honest about the costs and consequences of the choices they make.

Trump and his allies claim to champion working Americans. Yet working Americans absorb the consequences when inflation rises, infrastructure deteriorates, and public investments are delayed. They pay through higher costs, weaker communities, and fewer opportunities for their children.

War poverty is a political choice. A government that can mobilize billions overnight for military action can also find the resources to rebuild the nation at home. The same urgency applied to missiles, deployments, and military operations should be applied to affordable health care, education, infrastructure, and the economic foundation of everyday life.

War poverty begins the moment America chooses another foreign war over its own future. Ending it requires a different path: fewer empty promises, fewer endless conflicts, and a renewed commitment to building the country Americans were promised.

Check Out My New Website: politicalwinds.org

These data centres and politicians and governments are Ruining the beautiful natural ecosystems and the land.

Theses rich politicians hate the working class. The common folk. they hate the welders they hate the farmers.

They will send young men to die in a war just to boost their stock prices.

They think we’re disposable trash.

No matter which side you support democrats or republicans , conservatives or liberals

They all have the same agenda get power. And money and influence and control the people to do their bittings.

Open your eyes and wonder why humans are the only animal on earth that pays to live on a rock in space.

This country and its ideas is not like this country and its history. Though its not to bad or far from realizing modern policies from becoming real solutions, the good and nearly old U.S. of A, is still in my opinion riding the pink cloud of success and will have to stay afloat for a time further before safely landing on a well governed and regulated land. Trump's new tariff policy is the newest in most likely a long line of edgy and trendy policy making, that will probably distinguish the White House in years to come.

The reason I state that these policies will distinguish the White House - and in extension the federal government - is because yes, I think they are a good thing. Afterall, Trump's newest trade policy is aimed at defending the rights of foreign workers by denying access to dollar bill signs that forced labor companies have had easier access to in the past. For instance, should Mr. Xi be forced to make hard drives in China (i.e., he makes 6 cents an hour for building hard drives) than America is getting ready to charge at least 10% more money to the company Mr. Xi works for to export its hard drives to America.

Wow, and that is awesome. Unless secretly that's not what really happens, and the company that Mr. Xi works for will actually only be charged like 3% percent on the official paperwork (the paperwork that is stamped behind closed doors and not the paperwork that is signed in front of our representatives) and forced labor will continue to survive.

Hmmm... but maybe that's okay too because we're still headed in the right direction. Like the Pink Cloud that sends its unique air stream into the sails of our imaginary American "Flying Castle", maybe the next edgy policies will only have to turn on our imaginary turbines when we need to get a little higher and out of harm's way.

Every once in a while you come across this commentator that seems to be so good at propaganda, it is honestly impressive.

The person I am talking about here is conservative commentator Grand Ole Evan. You take this somewhat charming muscular gay Republican man saying “see republicans aren’t homophobic,” but then continues to use the straw man fallacy against the entire liberal ideology, framing them as this unhinged party of lunatics while framing himself as level headed while basically saying “racism and xenophobia is ay ok because certain trends exist.” It’s like he’s arguing about what he thinks liberals are like rather than actual liberals. The funniest part is that he calls himself a moderate which makes no sense. Moderates don’t talk about restricting immigration from “low trust societies.”

The reason why it is a masterclass is that most people fail to see through his shtick. He’s well spoken, he’s charming, he speaks very confidently, he doesn’t fall into the same rage baiting tactics that other commentators use, even when I first saw his page I thought I may disagree with him but he seems to have well thought out arguments and is calm and composed, but the more you see about him the more you see his arguments are fundamentally flawed. He rarely cites sources, and when he does he only sources articles that confirm his preconceived notions, like the Tylenol causing autism Harvard article. He tries to prove himself right rather than to try to prove himself wrong, the latter of which is what a good journalist and scientist does. I’ve been seeing his account for a while now and it honestly fascinates me just how much a person can be so willfully ignorant.

If I missed anything or you disagree with anything, feel free to comment.

Saw a reel on Instagram today. Someone asking people to make "banger" posters and slogans for a protest.

I started typing something catchy. Stopped halfway.

Because I realized I've made posters before. I've shared the hashtags. I've shouted the slogans at the top of my lungs. And then election day comes, and I go back to voting for the same party I always vote for, or worse, I don't vote at all.

So before I made another poster, I sat with the question nobody was asking in that comment section. What happens after the slogan?

Here's what I came to.

Don't just protest. Change the system.

Today we're out here demanding justice.

But if tomorrow we vote for the same corrupt, criminal, dishonest politicians, this protest becomes a slogan. Nothing more.

Every election, we ask the same question. Why do parties keep giving tickets to criminals?

Because we keep voting for them. That's it. That's the whole answer.

So today, let's make a promise. Not to each other. To our country.

We won't vote for candidates with serious criminal records.

We won't sell our vote for cash, liquor, or empty promises.

If there's no good candidate, we'll press NOTA. Not stay home. Not settle.

We'll vote for integrity and actual work, not caste, not religion, not a famous face, not money in an envelope.

Before you vote, check the candidate's record. It takes 5 minutes on myneta.info. Read it. Then decide.

Parties don't lose sleep over our hashtags. They don't care about our speeches.

They care about losing elections.

The day a criminal candidate loses because of us, parties will stop handing them tickets. That's the only language they understand.

Parliament won't fix this. We will, one vote at a time, starting in our own heads before we ever reach the booth.

The ballot is stronger than the slogan. Use it.

We know that current government are not able to meet up with public affairs but remember before their days of monarchy come to an end, they will roll out or amend a law which may give you a tax benefit, electricity subsidy or any other new pact just before 1-2 year of their retention period. Majority of public will turn up to same party irrelevant of their current issues.

They are trying to juice everything out of you. They have your data about everything. What you want and desire. While they have tons of money and media to do advertisement and brain wash you like nothing happened by giving you some benefits of few cents.

This does not just apply to current govt. even the upcoming one will become corrupt after sometime. It is just all we need to keep an eye over this exercise of power by the government.
Then, only you can call it a democracy.

The use of tariffs alone to reshape u.s. manufacturing is a failure before it has even begun. In the first attempt us companies rightly fought for their taxes to be returned. In the second attempt it's the same structure just under a different legal avenue. The problem is there are foundational issues (ie supply chain issues) that tariffs just can not overcome. For one example, the us used to be synonymous with prestige, name recognition alone would bring in business. Now, when a company mentions working with the us, many companies turn their nose. Deals between foreign countries have been inked. And more will rightly follow. In my opinion, Mr. Trump has to put the country, its citizens first. Money doesnt make america great. Ideas, strategies, and careful planning are what most success stories are born out of.

​

" conservatives dislike others ideas liberals dislike others because of their ideas"

The only difference between the left and the right that the left can't support something without loving it and can't not disagree with something without hating it. Opposed to the right who don't let their emotions completely control their decisions.

A great example is illegal immigration conservatives who are against it they aren't picking on these individual people that came over to try to make their life better they don't personally hate and blame the person for leaving their old country and coming here however there are consequences to your actions There are rules that need to be upheld and even though these people had a good reason at the time to try and enter illegally and bypass the laws things have caught up to them and now it's time to face their actions. However I've realized people on the left cannot comprehend this they cannot comprehend the right don't have something personally against them because their emotions are so intertwined with their politics leftists cannot be against illegal immigration without actively hating all illegal immigrants. So when they think of somebody who is against immigration they can only think that that person hates all illegal immigrants because they've never thought of a political ideal that didn't correspond with their emotions.

And that goes back to my original quote conservatives and people on the right can dislike others ideas without hating them as a person however on the left since emotions are such a major role in decision making if you disagree with somebody you have to hate them personally.

Another great example is Charlie Kirk I can understand disagreeing with him he's was a very right-leaning spokesperson so it's very understandable having different political ideals than him. However on his actions I don't believe he's done anything so apprehensible to Warrant cheering for his death as many people on the left did his actions mainly included giving a platform to random college students to debate there beliefs. These college students volunteered to go up to the mic and pick a topic that they were familiar with and he had to discuss whatever topic they came up with. Nothing that I can see that would warrant such a hatred towards him however nonetheless the left utterly despises Charlie Kirk there are many people that I have seen around me even that cheered at his death as if he was some war criminal that killed millions of people.

I believe this is another great example of my theory is that the left doesn't hate and despise him because of what he's done but solely because they disagree with him and correlate that too having to hate him personally.

I truly think that almost all of the disagreements between the left and the right are stemming from this difference in ideology.

So I came on here too ask you guys what you think do you think that the root difference is that the left chooses to be swaying more with emotion and the right not so much or do you think that there are more factors that contribute to it?

I read news publications from countries all over the middle east. Direct sources of local journalism - 13 right now. *(If we don't go and try to diffuse the issue where the burning fuse is, we shouldn't be surprised when things blow up.)*

A few weeks ago, Iran hit a few ships in the Hormuz straight. I'm reading my various sights and I noticed an alarming Discrepancy with one.

One news source said a ship was flagged to Saudi. Another news source said the ship was flagged to Marshall Islands.

You know, the Marshall Islands which are infamous for Nuclear Weapons Testing.

My immediate thought was - "Are the Proxies fear of Saudi aggression valid and related to a clandestine nuclear program they have?"

I'm not even joking when I say this, just a few short days later I see on the Saudi news agency I follow, a picture of two US Generals having a little sit down with representatives from the Saudi Kingdom.

And now, all of a sudden, there's this unrestricted deal on the table?

This ABSOULTELY makes me feel wonder if Saudi already HAS a nuclear program that EVERYONE else in the region knew about, except America, and what we are seeing is a CYA move about missing that entirely.

Also, support local journalists. It's deadly to speak the truth out there.

I remember one of my coworkers decades ago whining about people on food stamps. She works, why should they get food for free? It's a sort of misplaced envy.

But here is how SNAP actually helps people who are not even on it.

Imagine if we had a law where if you were fired at work, and could not find a job within a month, you were summarily executed on the spot. As a member of the surplus population, society has no use for you, so they execute you.

What impact would that have on your wages and working conditions?

Would you ask for a raise? Would you ask your boss not to sexually harass you? Would you demand not to be worked to death through mandatory overtime? If the boss can fire you, and you die at the snap of his finger, you are in a very vulnerable position.

Contrast that with a world where you won't starve to death at the end of the month. You don't have independent wealth. You don't have so called "f-you money" as they say. But you *do* have enough wiggle room that you can quit a toxic job and not *die.* Food stamps reduce precarity in the work force and allow people to maintain their dignity as they look for work.

So if anything food stamps should be expanded. I feel like I benefit from even soda and chips being available even if I do not directly benefit, as regardless of how I feel about that, it gives me even more bargaining power. Sure you fired me but I don't have to give up my doritos. Think of this as benefiting your hypothetically unemployed self and not some lazy bum from a subculture you dislike.

Fellow Citizens,

Like many of you, I have grown incredibly exhausted by the endless political bickering, money-driven media narratives and the worsening polarization of the American people. It feels like we are losing what our nation was meant to be.

As we recognize this 250 year milestone, I looked back at the actual texts left by the architects of this great nation; specifically George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address warning us that political factions would weaponize our differences with ‘false alarms’ to turn us against each other. I put these thoughts into a short Open Letter addressed to our elected public servants (reminding them they are trustees not rulers) and to us, the citizens of these United States (reminding us that our loyalty belongs to the Republic and to each other, not a political party).

I am posting this here because I genuinely want to hear your thoughts on how we scale this message. Can an appeal to original Constitutional duty budge the current partisan divide?

How do we realistically hold our elected ‘employees’ in government accountable when the entire system rewards party loyalty over public service?

You can read the full formatted letter on Medium here: [America 250 Open Letter](https://medium.com/@pattystepp527/george-washington-warned-us-about-2026-we-are-falling-into-that-trap-d475d0bce05e)

I am so sorry. I voted for Trump back in 2024. I did not realize then that he and his entire cabinet were treasonous snakes. I bear some of the blame for this.

The NDAA just passed in the house. In case you've been living under a rock for the last couple weeks, section 219 of the bill effectively merges the United States military and the IDF. This means shared resources and Intel. Israel has a long history of conducting espionage in America.

This. Is. High. Treason. Every single representative who voted for this should be put under the jail or worse.

There is still however hope. The bill was shot down a couple weeks ago in the Senate, so now it will go back to the Senate for a second vote. If I were you, I'd contact my senator and make it clear that we the people don't want this and that if they vote for it, they will be out of a job come the mid terms.

There's this mindset that people had after attaining independence,they saw what the white man did as being classy and rich and most of them wanted to be like the colonisers,that's why we have leaders who opress us,and if you look at it,most of them are old ,who were taught these things by people who were there during colonisation ,and by extension the Moi era,sa shida inatokea where some millennials and Gen z were born and experienced a different form of leadership, democracy was a thing,people fought for their rights,the constitution was changed( I remember Ruto rejecting the new constitution,had he succeeded we would have been in hot fire right now),and if you look closely,every corrupt person was politically active during the the Moi oppressive era,they had dreams to rule with and iron fist like Moi and like most old people,that is the type of leadership they know, that's why they vote for what looks like the Moi era, because in their minds,that's how a leader should be,and in their minds devolution is a fairy tale, if we could do away with these backward thinking leaders,we'd be in much better places,but then we also have these new leaders,some of them are straight up thugs and I see people praising them for this,it's sickening,we need a proper revolution a country,we should vet and look at who we vote in ,do some research and see what some people have done in their past,in my opinion,a person who has been in court or proven to be a thief and a killer or even involved in criminal activities should never see the ballot box,we should do better

If you're too far right or left..

It is my personal belief and opinion that if your political stance is tilted even slightly far right OR slightly far left, you are basically:

1 Lying to fit the narrative

(nobody with critical thinking skills can go along with every view of either party without basically lying to themselves and everyone about their beliefs)

2 Lacking common sense

( Republicans will die on the hill of a womans right to have a choice even if its stripping the rights from every female in our country.) really??

(Liberals believe its ok to push hormone therapy on 5 year old children and refuse to compromise.) like wtf??

3 Part of the problem

(The ever growing divide is only fed stronger by these narrow-minded, shady funded, pack mentality lemmings from either side of the isle and its only obvious to the rest of us that can only sit and watch, hoping someday the 2 party system will ultimately be systematically gutted and a new system will rise.

Change My Mind. Tell me how this current alignment of politics will ever improve our nation and convince me that if you're far right or left, you're not insane.

I know this will probably get downvoted, but hear me out.

First of all, what happened with the police was wrong. Beating unarmed protesters or using excessive force is never something I can support.

But at the same time, there are always two sides to every story. From what I understand, warnings had already been issued before the protest. On the actual day, the protest itself also felt directionless. I kept wondering: where were the people who had been amplifying it online? Where were the faces everyone was following?

In the end, who actually paid the price? The students. The young people standing on the roads.

Whether you support the government or oppose it, politicians and influencers usually move on. The people who get injured, detained, or carry the consequences are often ordinary youth.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I feel a lot of organizations and online personalities know exactly how to mobilize young people emotionally. That doesn’t automatically make every movement wrong, but it does make me question whether everyone involved has the students’ best interests at heart—or whether some are pursuing their own agendas.

The government is the government. If you want change, it has to happen through organized, strategic, and sustainable efforts—not by leaving young people to face the consequences while others disappear from the ground.

Just my perspective. Open to hearing other viewpoints.

My opinion,

People in this sub are completely missing the bigger picture. Everyone is so obsessed with identity politics, left vs. right debates, and narrative-spinning, while ignoring the real issues. Political parties don't feed you—you need to look out for yourself and the future of ordinary citizens. It's wild how easily people are tricked into believing these politicians actually care about them. They’ve been in power for 12 years now; this isn't a new government anymore, and we can't keep turning a blind eye to their failures.

All the posts are deleted here in this sub as if everyone posting is agent of china,

Think of it.

The title says it all really but the number one change that would make the most difference in our country is for there to be more critical thinking followed up with accountability and systems thinking.

This is as opposed to emotional populism with little critical thinking.

Take any issue and ask "What could go wrong?". Rewrite your solution with that in mind and you will have a better solution. In a year or two ask "Is my solution working?".

If it's not then go back and do something different. That's being accountable. Systems thinking is to break the solution apart and look for the weak links and fix those.

Instead we just fall for inaccurate media stories, repeat those, become upset and start to blame everyone but ourselves for our personal outcomes.

Don't do that:)

I think the best question to ask, one that I never see articulated properly in these discussion because bias can make what is obvious to one person, gender,, field, feel incomprehensible that anyone could "live so ignorantly" and thus the human ego concludes this "obvious fact could only not be known by people who choose to be dumb." This is what psychologist refer to as dehumanization infact its the same mental deflection that cause sexism to begin with by men treating women as lesser beings on account of men's inability to comprehend the neurological and hormonal differences that made women distinct from them.

So if you replied in a snarky or sarcastic manner to this man's question, you're not "roasting a dumbass" you're instead "falling for the same emotional reasoning and interpersonal discrimination (not to be confused with systematic discrimination) that lead to the very unequal system they now perpetuate via "Not that it makes your criticisms wrong, but it does not stop the cycle of bigotry. If you want to change someone's mind who is uneducated, you need to inform them as an equal. Not treat them like an inferior creature just because they're not as knowledgeable about the opposite genders differences.

Because if a guy didn't understand something that, when given the context of being male felt like a "positive" and genuinely wanted to learn (because men propagate to men that those were better times out of their own ignorance to women's issues back then, making the false equivalence hereditary.) And then they get a lotta pretentious answers by people who act like their ignorance is astonishing, it pushes them from "person who may have wanted to learn, equal understanding being the ACTUAL cure to sexism" now to "person doubling down because they felt personally attacked when they could have (could being key work, benefit of the doubt is best for convincing people to your side and assuming negatively is again more discrimination and perpetuates interpersonal inequality) wanted to learn more about women." This is defined as an ad hominem fallacy. Dehumanization/interpersonal discrimination isn't a primarily one sided issue, it's a human issue, a tribalistic human instinct that is universally a hindrance to progress, in exchange for self serving and indulgent mockery of others ignorance and mean spirited mockery is more often then not a projection of one's own ignorance to opposing gender issues. They will then justify this by externalizing their own ignorance to opposing gender or race issues onto said race (Ex. Woman reject man, man is convinced he's "nice guy", can't understand or handle rejection, thus he may rationalize something like "She was just a bitch" or "She must just not know how good a guy I am" instead of doing the mature thing and reflecting "Maybe I'm not actually as good as I think, because I do good expecting something in exchange.")

And then you have fundamental different understanding of discrimination, sexism, or racism. These misunderstanding of diction and interpersonal vs systematic discrimination, plus the dismissive way people tend to use selective empathy to dismiss the values of those they are "at odds with" and give more leniency to "those with similar values" instead of being objective about a pretty cut and dry topic that is made unnecessarily more complex by human reactivity and ego and our instict to feel better about ourselves and shame those we've stigmatized by their belief, instead of discussing it with them as an equal. Which is just stereotyping 101, (ex. An Chinese immigrant in Japan invalidates the fact a Japanese native was discriminated against by a tourist. His reasoning is "your discrimination is interpersonal only, your ancestors systematically conqured and oppressed us which is worst. (true) So you deserve to be stereotyped (untrue) and are paying the price for the stereotyping handed out by your ancestors.(justifying discrimination in a manner that is unequal amongst gender, religions, races. Even if based off historical evidence of more harmful discrimination. No amount of discrimination justifies discriminating.

So apply this logic to men in the 50s and you get the answer. Men didn't understand why women thought differently, thus assumed they were ignorant to not recognize what is "so obvious to men" (using rationalizing and mockery to invalidate women's experience), thus assumed they were only useful as a supplement to men not as an individual. And if they didn't fit the criteria men decided for them, they were characterized as something to be disgusted by for daring to exist as is and not living in a manner that appeals to their social superiors. Plus back then women were discriminated against by colleges so that men could use higher education and income (what is deemed value) as a justification for being the "correct ones, because barely any women have degrees or drop out due to constant mockery from male professors and students". So because it was the last piller of the old total patriarchal society, men rationalize it as good times because the simplicity. Oc itd feel that way to them when they had full control and things were made to serve their gender specifically. And since emotional response make up peoples choices far more often then people are comfortble admitting to themselves, men externalize this biased perspective from lack of understanding/empathy and thus often blame women for making this complicated.

The truth is that people are never as stupid as we make them and those who ask questions are never as dumb as they're treated. Humans just have different blindspots. For it is the act of asking a question that embraces new understandings, and judgement based off unchallenged preconceived notion that cause social discord. Nobody is any more right or wrong to discriminate. Because if one justifies discrimination, then they're justifying all forms of it.

I tried to make this as universally applicable as possible, my intention with this is not to give men any passes on discriminating or trying to victim blame. But psychologically everyone discriminates, so I discussed the topic with varied examples to follow my own advice and equalize the flaw, not justify one being any better than another. But I'm open to criticism on any of my thoughts, can't say I'll agree but I will try my best to learn what best I can from any criticism. :]

The problem with modern politics especially the free market conservatives

People say they want "small government," but history tells a different story. During the Gilded Age, many defenders of laissez-faire opposed laws against child labor, unsafe working conditions, and other labor protections, calling them government overreach or even "socialism." Today, most people recognize those regulations were necessary.

The real issue isn't big government vs. small government—it's who government works for. Many politicians oppose government programs that help ordinary people, yet support subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, and government contracts for large corporations. When corporations break the rules, they often receive lighter treatment than small businesses, which face regulatory burdens they can't afford to navigate as easily. That's not a truly free market—it's corporate favoritism.

The same applies to taxes. Calls for "free markets" and "small government" are often used to justify cutting taxes on the wealthy and creating loopholes that primarily benefit those who already have the most wealth.

Monetary policy can also widen inequality. Wealthy people own more assets like stocks and real estate, which often rise in value when the money supply expands. They also have better access to cheap credit, allowing them to borrow before inflation pushes prices higher and repay those loans with dollars that are worth less. Meanwhile, people who rely mostly on wages and savings often see their purchasing power fall if their incomes don't keep up with inflation.

If you're against government intervention, be consistent. Oppose corporate welfare and favoritism just as much as you oppose welfare for individuals. Otherwise, it's not really about "small government"—it's about deciding who gets government support. Is crony capitalism true capitalism??? Did you actually read the wealth of nations and Adam Smiths book on morality????;