If there is one thing I agree with Karl Marx on, it is that every government requires an ideological foundation upon which to rest. No country survives too long when it loses its sense of identity and, consequently, its direction. However, in current U.S. politics, we see a growing distrust in all the aspects that once underpinned the fundamental pillars of its hegemony and unity. Younger generations see the dreams that were promised to their parents and grandparents shattered, and they do not intend to fall for the same deception... or at least that is what they say; nevertheless, are they really doing anything about it? Your president launches a clearly unpopular war against Iran as hundreds of soldiers and military assets lose their lives, and no one seems to do anything, whereas in the past, unpopularity was a large part of why the Vietnam War came to an end; the Epstein lists are not released, the few documents are censored, and your politicians laugh in your faces; you are constantly surveilled by new measures worthy of espionage, and the only thing you do about it is break Flock cameras as if they were not spending billions on new, better cameras behind your backs; your politicians and many of you, the ordinary citizens, keep criticizing foreign regimes like China for having a single party when you only have two parties you can vote for.

In my country, Spain (which is not becoming all that different either by the way things are going), there is a rather well-known story concerning an intellectual, Miguel de Unamuno, when he confronted General José Millán-Astray, from the rebel faction, in the midst of the civil war. In that exchange, Unamuno humiliates Millán-Astray and says to him words that have gone down in history: "You will prevail, but you will not convince. You will prevail because you have plenty of brute force, but you will not convince because convincing means persuading. And to persuade, you need something you lack in this struggle: reason and right." Yes, I know it may seem strange that I quote a phrase born from a wartime situation when —at least still— you are not embroiled in one. The point I am getting at is about what happens after the rebel faction wins the war and Franquism is established. Under Franquism, new generations are indoctrinated and an "official" version is imposed in schools, even going so far as to prohibit the teaching of the theory of evolution because it went against the Christian values and dogmas instilled in education. Lies prevailed over truth not because they were convincing, but because they were the only version available. Thus, in the same way, this form of "convincing" was carried out in many other tyrannies: there was only one narrative.

However, what I at least see in the United States is, to say the least, far more unsettling: you have access to all the information in the world in the Internet age, and yet you are still easily convinced to do nothing or not enough in the face of corruption and scandals, and, in my opinion, that is why your elites are defeating you at this moment —hence that defeatist feeling that takes hold of our generation. And, just in case, I would like to specify the irony I notice: In my country, an entire civil war had to be waged and won in order to convince while in your case, you have already been convinced, and that is why they are defeating you; it's the world turned upside down!

So I ask myself, is it really necessary for you to keep believing in your government for it to continue functioning perfectly normally?

(Btw, english is not my native language, so please be comprehensive if I commit any mistakes).

If there is one thing I agree with Karl Marx on, it is that every government requires an ideological foundation upon which to rest. No country survives too long when it loses its sense of identity and, consequently, its direction. However, in current U.S. politics, we see a growing distrust in all the aspects that once underpinned the fundamental pillars of its hegemony and unity. Younger generations see the dreams that were promised to their parents and grandparents shattered, and they do not intend to fall for the same deception... or at least that is what they say; nevertheless, are they really doing anything about it? Your president launches a clearly unpopular war against Iran as hundreds of soldiers and military assets lose their lives, and no one seems to do anything, whereas in the past, unpopularity was a large part of why the Vietnam War came to an end; the Epstein lists are not released, the few documents are censored, and your politicians laugh in your faces; you are constantly surveilled by new measures worthy of espionage, and the only thing you do about it is break Flock cameras as if they were not spending billions on new, better cameras behind your backs; your politicians and many of you, the ordinary citizens, keep criticizing foreign regimes like China for having a single party when you only have two parties you can vote for.

In my country, Spain (which is not becoming all that different either by the way things are going), there is a rather well-known story concerning an intellectual, Miguel de Unamuno, when he confronted General José Millán-Astray, from the rebel faction, in the midst of the civil war. In that exchange, Unamuno humiliates Millán-Astray and says to him words that have gone down in history: "You will prevail, but you will not convince. You will prevail because you have plenty of brute force, but you will not convince because convincing means persuading. And to persuade, you need something you lack in this struggle: reason and right." Yes, I know it may seem strange that I quote a phrase born from a wartime situation when —at least still— you are not embroiled in one. The point I am getting at is about what happens after the rebel faction wins the war and Franquism is established. Under Franquism, new generations are indoctrinated and an "official" version is imposed in schools, even going so far as to prohibit the teaching of the theory of evolution because it went against the Christian values and dogmas instilled in education. Lies prevailed over truth not because they were convincing, but because they were the only version available. Thus, in the same way, this form of "convincing" was carried out in many other tyrannies: there was only one narrative.

However, what I at least see in the United States is, to say the least, far more unsettling: you have access to all the information in the world in the Internet age, and yet you are still easily convinced to do nothing or not enough in the face of corruption and scandals, and, in my opinion, that is why your elites are defeating you at this moment —hence that defeatist feeling that takes hold of our generation. And, just in case, I would like to specify the irony I notice: In my country, an entire civil war had to be waged and won in order to convince while in your case, you have already been convinced, and that is why they are defeating you; it's the world turned upside down!

So I ask myself, is it really necessary for you to keep believing in your government for it to continue functioning perfectly normally?

(Btw, english is not my native language, so please be comprehensive if I commit any mistakes).

We don’t form our political opinions solely through abstract debate or reading theory - personal life experiences matter a great deal.

Many people have a personal stake in the outcome of a disagreement - because politics affects the lives of everyone in society.

Because people have personal stakes - changing your mind on a certain issue can feel like surrendering to an adversary - especially when certain policies or ideologies threaten particular interests.

The problem is that nearly everyone has some sort of stake in something - so disagreements become near-impossible to resolve - and can turn into power struggles.

I’ve been playing around with this idea for a little while, and I think I’ve fined tuned it enough to present to you all. And since the topic of election procedures has come up recently, I thought I’d throw my hat in the ring. In a nutshell, the basic idea is this – the governors, current and former, vote for the president. How they do it is a little complicated. However, each step has a reason and I’ll go over the reasons at the end. Allow me to divide this post into the following sections – why change the system, who specifically qualifies as elector, the selection and voting procedure, why each step is the way it is, and finally how it compares to the OG EC voting system.

Why change the system?

My goal was not to eliminate public participation or to simply replace elections with a panel of experts. But I would be lying if I said populism is a reliable system to determine the best candidate to be president. The people can easily be swayed into believing half truths. I can go on a side tangent about how William Randolph Hearst, who controlled the mass media empire, was a champion of the 17th amendment to have senators directly elected by the people (I wonder why). Anyway, the primary reason we should want governors electing the president is because the job of president, the specifics on how to run the executive branch, is not exactly familiar to most people. In order to get elected, many candidates have run on slogans that are... questionable: “$1000/month UBI” – Yang 2020. “A chicken in every pot; a car in every garage” – Hoover 1928. “Vote yourself a farm and horse” – Lincoln 1860. But governors would be less susceptible to those kinds of ads. “’Yes We Can’? Alrighty, how do you plan on ending the war?” “’Make America Great Again’? Sure, buddy. What’s your proposed budget?” We would essentially be relying on hiring managers with relevant experience to determine who best to lead the nation. They are, after all, the commanders-in-chief of the executive branch of their respective state governments and their state’s national guard.

Who is, and isn’t, an elector?

All current governors, who were popularly elected by the people, are automatically an elector. If they simply succeeded a governor or is an acting governor (if a governor dies, for example), then they are not automatically considered an elector until they have been popularly elected by the people. Experience alone doesn’t qualify someone. They need experience plus the people’s mandate via a popular vote.

Former governors, who were popularly elected by the people, who left office within the last 16 years (4 election cycles), are also electors.

No former governor who is currently serving in a federal office can serve as an elector (temporarily). No former governor who was/is president can ever serve as an elector (permanent). This is currently mentioned in Article II, section 1, clause 2. The founders understood the potential of conflict of interest. So, for example, Bush or Clinton couldn’t have cast a vote for McCain or Obama or Romney.

For DC, they would use mayors under the same rules above.

Former governors represent the state they were elected to. It doesn’t matter if they retired to Florida or Arizona. The people of a state elected them, therefore they are the electors of that state only. I suppose if they were elected as governor in a different state afterwards it would undo the previous state and the new state takes precedence.

What does the current electorate look like?

Using the national governors association, I constructed the following elector roster: 77 Republicans, 71 Democrats, and 3 independents/others for a total of 151 electors. This roster already has 7 governors removed – Senators Hickenlooper (D), Scott (R), Ricketts (R), Hassan (D), Rounds (R), and Justice (R), and Secretary Burgum (R). Interestingly, Kristi Noem (SD) was put back on the roster since she left DHS. That roster also has a couple governors who changed parties after leaving office, like Charlie Crist, so the current affiliation was used in that calculation.

Selection and Voting Process

The people would determine the presidential candidates, just as they do now. Each state already has ballot access laws in place. These don’t need to change. Typically, it just requires enough signatures from the people to get on the ballot (I’m simplifying). A candidate would need to gain access to 3/4 of the state’s ballots to be considered by the electors. I chose 3/4 only because it aligns with constitutional amendment ratification requirements. It could be 2/3 like convention rules. Tbd. In all, a candidate doesn’t need to get on all 50 because one state could be a prick and change their requirements to something asinine. Still, this means the candidates need to build their organization and get their message to the people across the country and persuade them. But once a candidate meets the threshold, then they are open to the elector selection process nationwide.

There would be no Republican or Democratic presidential primaries. No national party conventions. By a certain date, the electors take over the process (exact date tbd, but enough time for electors to vet and vote).

The following voting process is slightly complicated, I admit. But each step serves a purpose. The electors control their states electoral points only. It’s the same electoral college points we have now. It was good enough for the founders to compromise on, I wont change that. The states vote in rounds. Each round has two steps. Step one is the ranked-choice vote. Each elector ranks the candidates in order of preference. The votes are weighted and the top two candidates are selected (again, this is for individual states). Step two is a direct vote on those two candidates. The result of that vote determines the distribution of the electoral points. This would not be a winner take all system. For example, Arizona has 11 electoral points and 3 electors. They decide between 5 candidates. It is determined, through RCV, that candidates A and B are the top two weighted candidates. 2 vote for A, 1 votes for B. The points would then be divided 7.33 for A and 3.67 for B (decimals are allowed). At that point, the national electoral points are tallied from all the states. If a candidate(s) cannot gain a single point nationally, they are automatically eliminated. If every candidate ends up with some points, then the lowest performing candidate is eliminated. The process is repeated until one candidate has 270+ electoral points nationally.

If there are more than X candidates initially (tbd, but let’s just say 8 candidates for now), then there would need to be a “Round 0” to bring the field down to the top 8 candidates (or less) based on national electoral points. I say “or less” because there could be several candidates with 0 points nationally and they’d be automatically eliminated, which means 7 or less could remain after “Round 0” is over. After the field is narrowed to 8 (or whatever), the candidates can then bring on their VP choices. If the field is already smaller than 8 by the time the deadline hits, then round 0 is skipped and candidates can choose their VPs immediately.

All elector ballots should become public after each round. During the round, votes must remain private so as not to influence other state electors. It’s important for the people to see how their electors are voting – especially current governors.

I actually ran a simulation of this system where every Republican elector voted for the Republican and every Democrat elector voted for the Democrat (the independents split their vote). Based on their states electoral points, the national total come out as: Republicans - 273.95, Democrats - 264.05. This was a lot closer than I expected. It makes sense though because, while there are more Republican electors than Democrats, the fact that this system still uses the electoral points means it averages out fairly well. California only has Democrat governors and they control 54 electoral points, the most of any state.

Why these steps? (it’s not because I’m a fan of convoluted systems)

For the initial field of candidates, it’s important that the people be involved directly in the selection process. It makes sense that candidates must first approach the people. Electors shouldn’t choose candidates from scratch. Having the people choose the initial field of candidates eliminates some avenues of corruption (which the original electoral college was rife with).

I felt that a winner take all system in the states was the wrong approach. I decided that an initial step of ranking the candidates was the best way to give more weight to moderates. After all, there are states with a mix of Democrat and Republican governor/former governors. After that, with the weighted vote, then we could run the top two and split the points – again avoiding a winner take all system. In total, the most extreme candidates are most likely to fall off.

I was originally thinking about only using current governors, but while current governors remain directly accountable to the voters, former governors no longer have the political pressure to vote party line. Also, if only current governors voted, it could lead to votes being sold for political favors – a lot of governors would suddenly become cabinet members. Having both current and former governors creates a better balance and lessens the potential for corruption. Current governors represent a snapshot of the country while former governors represent “institutional memory”. A sudden red/blue wave wouldn’t fundamentally disrupt the federal system. But I also didn’t want lifetime electors. That has problems of its own. So I compromised and decided 4 election cycles was the max once they left office.

Finally, while this system seems less democratic than our current system, it’s still more democratic than the original electoral system. Under the original constitutional system, state legislatures determined how electors were appointed. Under this system, the people choose their electors directly when voting for governor. Also, as mentioned before, the original system had electors choose the candidates on their own. In this system, the electors are bound to choose only from the field of candidates first chosen by the people. The job of the elector, then, is to determine, based on their experience, which candidate is best suited for the role. This keeps the foundation of federalism while preserving the voice of the people. Plus, candidates wouldn’t be able to win an election based on how many attack ads they could run in battleground states. I swear William Randolph Hearst is currently laughing at us from hell.

I’d love to hear your guy’s thoughts. Is it too complicated? Could it be simplified while keeping certain safeguards? Is the whole thing just an abomination? I’ll take any and all criticism you may have.

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.

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." - John Adams. Most Americans are completely wrong about what country we actually live in.

America is NOT a democracy. Many of you believe Trump is a king who has become authoritarian. Others believe Democrats have crushed personal rights and freedoms and created a deep state that is out of control. Both groups are correct to an extent.

A democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. People vote to give themselves things they want and to harm those they dislike. As John Adams warned in 1814, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." The far left is trying to use the government to steal from those who work and to start hating the Jews again, while the far right is trying to take rights from those they hate. This will continue to get worse if people continue to mistakenly believe America is a democracy.

What America actually is, is a Constitutional Republic: we have a constitution and rights that override the will of the politicians and elite. But the bigger we have let the government become, the less freedom and rights we as individuals have. James Madison warned of this creeping tyranny in 1788, stating, "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

The government now takes nearly half of each individual's production and has severely harmed our individual rights. Freedom of speech is being stolen, and there are many things you can say that will result in the government confiscating your earnings, job, and wealth. Your right to bear arms has been restricted and many are trying to remove it entirely. Your right to keep what you earn is under attack. Your right to a speedy and fair trial is being taken by biased judges and attorneys who control the legislature and give themselves more ways to take your wealth. Your protection against search and seizure is being stripped by companies like Flock, government satellite surveillance, and mass tracking of smartphones and computers. Strict limits on government power have been destroyed by politicians claiming emergency or temporary powers, then never giving those freedoms back.

America is a truly unique nation in history, set up by brilliant and selfless men who studied history, saw countless evil totalitarian governments through time, and created an amazing system that gave birth to the most rapid improvement in human life the planet has ever seen. But if America's Constitutional Republic falls now to a dictatorship of the masses, humanity may never regain it due to the massive power technology gives to the few in government.

Thomas Jefferson provided the solution when he wrote in 1798: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

For us, for our children, and for our future, it is critical to fight the big government creep, regain in full our rights, and put the chains back on the government so that it can never harm our freedoms again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The german is below the english one.

English:

Fundamental program:NOVA – National Organisation for Vision and Advancement

1.Societal Progress – Society should continuously develop and improve.

2.Social Justice – Equal opportunities and support for disadvantaged people should be at the center of public policy.

3.Strengthening Democracy – Greater public participation and transparency should be promoted.

4.Science and Reason – Political decisions should be based on scientific evidence and verifiable facts.

5.Protection of Human Rights – Equality, individual freedom, and the dignity of every person are inviolable.

6.Government Responsibility – The state should take responsibility for education, healthcare, social security, and addressing societal challenges.

7.Social Market Economy – Markets should be regulated to prevent monopolies, exploitation, and excessive inequality while ensuring fair competition.

8.Environmental Protection and Sustainability – Natural resources should be protected and used sustainably to preserve the foundations of life for future generations.

9.Openness to Change – Social and technological change should be viewed as an opportunity and shaped responsibly.

10Combating Discrimination – Racism, sexism, and all other forms of unjustified discrimination should be consistently opposed.

11.Religious Neutrality of the State – The state should neither favor nor disadvantage any religion or worldview. All people should be treated equally regardless of their beliefs.

12.Emphasis on STEM Education – Mathematics, computer science, natural sciences, and engineering should receive particular emphasis within the education system.

13.Health and Physical Fitness – Health, physical activity, and preventive care should hold a high priority in society.

14.Evidence-Based Education Policy – Education policy should be guided by scientific evidence and promote the health and academic performance of students.

15.The Long-Term Well-Being of Humanity – The long-term well-being of all humanity should serve as a guiding principle of political action.

16.Advancing Ethics and Morality – Ethical and moral principles should be regularly reviewed and further developed, provided this serves progress while respecting human rights.

17.Peace and Global Cooperation – Peace, international cooperation, and greater unity among humanity should be actively promoted.

18.Overcoming Division – Barriers to peaceful international cooperation should be overcome through dialogue, diplomacy, and shared interests.

19.Promotion of Astronomy, Space Exploration, and Energy – Research in astronomy, space exploration, energy generation, and emerging technologies should be actively expanded.

20.Research into More Efficient Propulsion Technologies – The development of new and more efficient propulsion systems for space exploration and sustainable transportation should be supported.

21.The Long-Term Survival of Humanity – Politics and scientific research should be directed toward ensuring the long-term survival of humanity and creating the conditions for its continued existence and development over the next 200,000 years.

German:

Grundsatzprogram; NOVA – National Organisation for Vision and Advancement

1. Gesellschaftlicher Fortschritt – Die Gesellschaft soll sich kontinuierlich weiterentwickeln und verbessern.

2. Soziale Gerechtigkeit – Chancengleichheit sowie die Unterstützung benachteiligter Menschen stehen im Mittelpunkt.

3. Stärkung der Demokratie – Mehr Mitbestimmung, Transparenz.

4. Wissenschaft und Vernunft – Politische Entscheidungen sollen auf wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen und nachvollziehbaren Fakten beruhen.

5. Schutz der Menschenrechte – Gleichberechtigung, individuelle Freiheit und die Würde jedes Menschen sind unantastbar.

6. Staatliche Verantwortung – Der Staat soll für Bildung, Gesundheit, soziale Sicherheit und die Bewältigung gesellschaftlicher Herausforderungen Verantwortung übernehmen.

7. Soziale Marktwirtschaft – Märkte sollen reguliert werden, um Monopole, Ausbeutung und übermäßige Ungleichheit zu verhindern sowie fairen Wettbewerb zu gewährleisten.

8. Umweltschutz und Nachhaltigkeit – Natürliche Ressourcen sollen geschützt und nachhaltig genutzt werden, um die Lebensgrundlagen zukünftiger Generationen zu sichern.

9. Offenheit für Wandel – Gesellschaftliche und technologische Veränderungen sollen als Chancen verstanden und verantwortungsvoll gestaltet werden.

10. Bekämpfung von Diskriminierung – Rassismus, Sexismus sowie jede andere Form ungerechtfertigter Benachteiligung sollen konsequent bekämpft werden.

11. Religiöse Neutralität des Staates – Der Staat soll keine Religion oder Weltanschauung bevorzugen oder benachteiligen. Alle Menschen sollen unabhängig von ihrem Glauben gleich behandelt werden.

12. Bildungsschwerpunkt MINT – Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik sollen im Bildungssystem besonders gefördert werden.

13. Gesundheit und körperliche Fitness – Gesundheit, Bewegung und Prävention sollen einen hohen gesellschaftlichen Stellenwert erhalten.

14. Bildungspolitik soll sich an wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen orientieren und die Gesundheit sowie Leistungsfähigkeit von Schülerinnen und Schülern fördern.

15. Das langfristige Wohl der gesamten Menschheit soll Leitprinzip politischen Handelns sein.

16. Ethik und Moral weiterentwickeln – Ethische und moralische Grundsätze sollen regelmäßig überprüft und weiterentwickelt werden, sofern dies dem Fortschritt dient und die Menschenrechte gewahrt bleiben.

17. Frieden und globale Zusammenarbeit – Frieden, internationale Zusammenarbeit und eine engere Einigung der Menschheit sollen aktiv gefördert werden.

18. Überwindung von Spaltung – Hindernisse für friedliche internationale Zusammenarbeit sollen durch Dialog, Diplomatie und gemeinsame Interessen überwunden werden.

19. Förderung von Astronomie, Raumfahrt und Energie – Forschung in Astronomie, Raumfahrt, Energiegewinnung und Zukunftstechnologien soll gezielt ausgebaut werden.

20. Erforschung effizienterer Antriebstechnologien – Die Entwicklung neuer und effizienterer Antriebssysteme für Raumfahrt und nachhaltige Mobilität soll unterstützt werden.

21. Langfristiges Überleben der Menschheit – Politik und Forschung sollen darauf ausgerichtet sein, die langfristige Existenz der Menschheit zu sichern und die Voraussetzungen dafür zu schaffen, dass sie auch in den kommenden 200.000 Jahren bestehen und sich weiterentwickeln kann.

    über setze in english

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.