Related Subs

Ramaswami had a lot to offer, but just dropped out following his caucus results. He brought a lot of reason and sanity on almost all issues. His outlier views are closer to 'innovative' than 'insane'. And he put America first.

Long story short, I'd have voted for Ramaswami over Biden, hands down. And that is criteria #1 for the Republican nominee.

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy tweeted this. Nailed it.

Are all 16 items on the tweet's list great examples? Probably not. But close. The Washington Post response/whine/hit piece on the tweet basically just says the tweet list entries are unfairly "vague". It's twitter. 280 characters, 16 items on Ramaswamy's tweet. Not much of a comeback by WaPo. Especially since most are very obvious.

There’s a dorm at MIT called “Chocolate City”, it’s a real thing, I just saw a court video about it, where only blacks are allowed.

The defense is saying that it provides a safe space for common experiences and support for the black community on campus. It’s not segregation it’s “Positive Inclusion” where if you’re white, but you identify as black, you can allegedly live in those dorms.

The Prosecutor is saying that it’s segregation.

What do you think? Is it okay for blacks to have their own dorms excluding whites due to feeling excluded at the campus at large to have a space to converse about being black in a white world and dealing with such disadvantages?

Or are you in the camp that says it’s basically reverse-segregation. And if they had a dorm called “Vanilla Ville” that was marketed as a safe space for whites, then that would obviously racist?

Or do you believe in both?

The reason why I ask is because when you look at the political (and rhetorical) philosophies between both presidents, there's a fairly large gulf in a number of key areas.

The George W Bush administration was quite prolific for the following:

• Much throughout its time, there was a strong Neoconservative sentiment among many conservatives (voters and politicians alike).
• Rhetorically, much of the rhetoric surrounding our foreign policy and military - during the GWB era - was highly jingoistic, with common beliefs being that we should be "honoring our troops and veterans". Not doing so, or expressing disdain for foreign military intervention could likely be met with accusations of "not being patriotic enough".
• There was pretty strong fervor for reforming/cutting entitlement benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare.

These are just me naming a few notable aspects of his time in office. Contrast this against Trump, where he had quite an isolationist mindset with regards to his foreign policy rhetoric. He's enacted Tariffs that many Neoconservatives would find abhorrent, as well as subverting many cultural norms that other Republican politicians would uphold as part of being morally righteous. He's even been willing to state that Republicans should not seek to cut SS or Medicare.

The biggest divergence for me is that he was willing to say that he didn't appreciate John McCain being considered a War Hero because he was captured. We understand that he did so for the sake of protecting his men, and yet when the statement was made in front of an audience, at least half of them were heard cheering. This type of rhetoric would have been unheard of during the GWB administration. Hell, I'd imagine if any Democrat were to say such a thing, Conservatives would state that the offending politician is unpatriotic, doesn't value our military men, and shouldn't be able to hold a seat in political office.

I want to know what brought you to wanting to vote for Trump, because there's a fairly sizable canyon in the mindsets of both his time in office, and GWB. Like I legit want to know what steps got you there, because I can at least understand the waning sentiment behind continuing the constant military campaigns overseas. But that McCain comment, and subsequent audience response, seemed so shocking to me (especially with the outcome of Trump becoming the Republican nominee and- ultimately- president).

And I'm sure we can make exceptions for rape & incest. Nobody wants to put single moms in prison or force them to die during childbirth, but 24 weeks is 2/3 through the pregnancy. Fully formed heart, blood vessels, fingerprints, blinking eyes...more than a cluster of cells at that point.

The AP published a piece headlined:

Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism

The AP appears to have stealth edited the article title, but not its tweet on X.

The AP's spin on the Harvard plagiarism scandal is pretty clearly that: spin. Plagiarism is a serious academic violation throughout academia, including in Harvard's policies. Gay was found to have plagiarized extensively.

Harvard refused to find her plagiarism sufficient to warrant punishment. Should we trust Harvard's judgment? Probably not.

Harvard refused to even acknowledge the more serious instances earlier in Gay's career, nor did Gay address them (as of 12/20, do not know whether that has changed). Also notably, Harvard circled the wagons despite findings that Gay committed seven (now eight) major instances of plagiarism. Total instances have now reached ~50, now including lifting up to half a page plus endnotes from another author without citing or even mentioning him.

That author, by the way, says he sees no problem with Gay lifting his work. His take, too, is judgment we should not trust. It must be read as blatantly politically motivated, because Gay's taking is so extensive there is simply no way to slide it by Harvard's (or anyone else's) policies.

My humble self is a published author of an academic legal work, as well as graduate school work. I have no doubt that if I had plagiarized 1/10 (actually, 1/50, i.e. even once) as much as Gay did, it probably would have been a case-closed situation.

Was the witch hunt for Gay's plagiarism politically motivated? Yes. Does that change the fact she did it? No. See the witch hunts against Trump's private life pre-presidency, or Clarence Thomas, or ... well, you get the idea.

“If the Fascist ideology cannot be described as a simple response to Marxism, its origins, on the other hand, were the direct result of very specific revision of Marxism.” --Zeev Sternhell, a Polish-born Jew, and considered one of the world's leading theorists of the phenomenon of fascism. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution, Princeton University Press (1994) (p. (5)

Zeev Sternhell: “It was the revolutionary syndicalists, those dissidents and nonconformists of the Left, who by means of their criticism of Marxist determinism created the first elements of the Fascist synthesis in the first decade of our century.” The Birth of Fascist Ideology (p. 8)

Zeev Sternhell: “Like all self-respecting revolutionaries, Mussolini considered himself a Marxist. He regarded Marx as the ‘greatest theoretician of socialism’ and Marxism as the ‘scientific doctrine of class revolution.’” The Birth of Fascist Ideology (p. 197),

“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles.” --Götz Aly, *Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (*2007) p. 16 (winner of the Jewish Book of the Year Award in 2007)

“Fascism was the shadow or ugly child of communism... As Fascism sprang from Communism, so Nazism developed from Fascism.” --Winston Churchill, The Second World War, Volume 1, The Gathering Storm, Mariner Books (1985), pp. 13-14. First published in 1948.

“The first Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy’s intelligentsia of the Left.” -- James Gregor, U.C. Berkeley*, The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century*, Yale University Press, p. 20 (2000)

“Mussolini had been envious of the bolsheviks and for a while fancied himself as the Lenin of Italy,” by 1919. Denis Mack Smith*,* English Historian*, Modern Italy: A Political History*, University of Michigan Press (1997) p. 284

“Given the opportunity, Mussolini would have been glad as late as 1920-21 to take under his wing the Italian Communists for whom he felt great affinities: greater, certainly, than for democratic socialists, liberals and conservatives. Genetically, Fascism issued from the 'Bolshevik' wing of Italian socialism, not from any conservative ideology or movement. Richard Pipes, Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime (1994) (p. 253), taught at Harvard University, was born to a Jewish family in Poland.

After years of everyone knowing it to be true, but republicans sweeping it under the rug, the truth is out. Donald Trump and his once best friend epstein were pedophiles together.

Now before the whataboutisms of Bill Clinton, let me say, screw that dude too. They should both be in jail together. But Bill isn't a frontrunner candidate for the oval office, so I'm not going to focus on him.

Donald trumps history and commentary on Epstein and Maxwell have confirmed he was good friends with them going as far as wishing recently convicted maxwell well in prison. Combine that with the fact that there are more released photos of trump with epstein than any other person, and combine that with trumps statements that epstein likes them young, and it is next to impossible to pretend in earnest that trump didn't at least know and do nothing about epstein. He didn't call it in, he never spoke out against it. Didn't offer to testify against the pedo couple.

We know trump knew beyond a reasonable doubt, and did nothing. So now we know he went to the island where it happened. Not once. No, one time could have been a mistake. Not twice. No, maybe 2 times could still be an accident. 7 times. And you expect me to believe he did that?

Now, it's America, you guys can still of course vote for the pedophile in the race. But understand by doing so at this point you are condoning pedophilia, and the craziest part is. You guys know this now, and have known it for awhile (as we all have) and just like before, youre all about to do some mental gymnastics about why trumps trips to pedo island were innocent and he shpuldnt be held accountable, but clinton should. Let me say, its disgusting.

One insight comes from the 1934 Hitler Youth rally at Nuremberg.

The children sang:

“No evil priest can prevent us from feeling that we are the children of Hitler. We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel! Away with incense and holy water. The Church can hang for all we care! The swastika brings salvation on earth. I want to follow it step by step."

(source: Richard Grubeger’s book “The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945”, p. 442)

See meme 17 from the top -- https://www.killinghistory.net/memes/

“Hitler is a very remarkable man, a very able man.” (“Shaw Heaps Praise upon the Dictators: While Parliaments Get Nowhere”, NYT, Nov. Dec. 10, 1933)

“The Nazi movement is in many respects one which has my warmest sympathy.” --George Bernard, London Morning Post, (Dec. 3, 1925)

“As a red hot Communist, I am in favour of fascism.” Bernard Shaw, The News Chronicle, "The Blackshirt Challenge," (Jan. 17, 1934).

“[Mussolini was] farther to the Left in his political opinions than any of his socialist rivals.” Socialism and Superior Brains: The Political Thought of Bernard Shaw, Gareth Griffith, Routledge, (2002) p. 253, Manchester Guardian (1927)

“Some of the things Mussolini has done, and some that he is threatening to do go further in the direction of Socialism than the English Labour Party could yet venture if they were in power.” (Letter from G. Bernard Shaw to a friend, "Bernard Shaw's Defence of Mussolini," (Feb. 7, 1927)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was told that votes for him in some presidential primaries would not be counted. The same Democrat Party tactic has befallen Congressman Phillips (D) in Florida’s presidential primary. Why does the Democrat Party want to stop candidates from running for office? Isn’t this election interference? They are now trying to strip election rights from a Republican candidate for President in Colorado. Only Joe Biden can run for President? Hmm. Isn’t this the type of behavior usually reserved for dictators? Should we start referring to the Democrats as the “Undemocratic Party” or the “American Fascist Party?”

Fitzhugh is infamous for declaring that “slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism” and that a “Southern farm is beau idea of Communism.” Like almost all slaveholders, Fitzhugh was a fervent Democrat. He even worked for the Confederacy. Where would Fitzhugh, a racist-socialist slaveholder, be placed on the political spectrum?

Fitzhugh’s book: Sociology for the South, or, the Failure of Free Society (1854).

Wikiquote page: https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/

Trotsky declared: “Stalinism and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity.” The Revolution Betrayed (1936), chapter 11

Trotsky admitted that Stalinism matched well together with fascism. After all, Benito Mussolini was an “authoritarian communist” for decades.

Other Marxists equated communism with fascism. One was Otto Rühle, a German Marxist who associated with German Communist Rosa Luxemburg. Rühle declared: “Russia was the example for fascism. [...] Whether party 'communists' like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially, they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown 'soviet state', as well as of red, black or brown fascism.”

Source: "The Struggle Against Fascism Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism”. First appeared in the American Councilist journal Living Marxism (4: 8, 1939).

Why haven't you heard of her? Partly because she's in local politics. Partly because it's recent news. And probably in large part because she is a Republican (oddly, still registered as a Democrat despite being in office awhile as a Republican). Her politics don't match her identity politics checkboxes.

Being black and Republican is a sort of invisibility cloak in the media, as evidenced in a prior post. Relatedly, there is already a campaign on Wikipedia to delete Pilip's page!

A survey of news articles about her selection as the Republican candidate show some major outlets failing to show a picture of her, and/or failing to mention she is black.

The report stated: “The belief that Hitler is homosexual has probably developed (a) from the fact that he does show so many feminine characteristics and (b) from the fact that there were so many homosexuals in the Party during the early days and many continue to occupy important positions. ... There is a possibility that Hitler has participated in a homosexual relationship at some time in his life.”

Source: A top-secret report by the OSS (pre-CIA) was released in 1943 by a Harvard psychologist, Walter C. Langer, which was declassified in the 1970s and turned into a book. M.O. Branch Office of Strategic Service (OSS), Washington D.C. (1943) pp. 195-196.

https://ia601208.us.archive.org/33/items/APsychologicalAnalysisofAdolfHitler/A%20Psychological%20Analysis%20of%20Adolf%20Hitler.pdf

Wilhoit law. More info: https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects

Seems spot on to me- consider the following:

Conservatives want to be protected to follow their religion-> to the point of segregating whole parts of our people- LGTBQ, atheist, minorities- so the law protects them and leaves them free to practice their religion by refusing service to those they dislike and the law binds minorities but does not protect them.

In groups are the religious and patriotic- MAGA.

Out groups are minorities and democrats.

Edit: laws on abortion good example. Law protects conservatives thinking. No abortions. Law binds women. Edit2: I am talking USA conservatives

"It may be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism." -- Benito Mussolini, 1933

From Jane Soames’s authorized translation of Mussolini’s “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” Hogarth Press, London, (1933), p. 20 https://historyuncensored.wixsite.com/history-uncensored

Mussolini's quote about being a Communist: "It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet." (As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933) p. 38)

Note that Richard Pipes, a Harvard Historian, born in Poland from a Jewish family, argued that Mussolini moved away from Lenin's Marxism around 1920-21, and that "Genetically, Fascism issued from the 'Bolshevik' wing of Italian socialism, not from any conservative ideology or movement." (Richard Pipes Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime, New York: NY, Vintage Books (1995) p. 253)

Republicans have been going pretty hard on the identity politics involving Israel and the war going on there against hamas.

They have been describing anyone who has even minor criticisms of the approach Israel is taking to combat hamas as antisemitic despite the overarching support.

I have heard people called antisemitic for making comments such as "I agree, Israel should wipe out hamas and defend themselves for the terror attack. But I don't think they should be carpet bombing children to do it when they have other, more precise methods of handling the situation". Which doesn't even come close to hating jews.

So a few things I wonder. 1. When did republicans start doing identity politics? 2. Since when are we not allowed to criticize a foreign government? And 3. Why are they specifically using antisemitism as the way to brush off real criticism.

Upon thinking about it, I believe all 3 have an answer.

1. Republicans have always done identity politics. They just don't like when it's used against them. Normal and expected hypocrisy in that regard

2. Republicans are against us speaking out against Israel, not because of a moral push, but because AIPAC money, and the need for their military industrial donors to sell.

And 3. The reason they are specifically calling any dissenting opinions antisemitic is because they want to desensitize us to the word. They want to do this for the same reason they called Obama racist. Because it makes the label less effective for them and their followers.

When they have multiple mass shooters a year targeting jews, dozens of conspiracy theorists representing their party online telling everyone the jews are evil. When their leading candidate is having dinners with neo nazis who self identify as antisemitic, they see an opportunity to dilute the word.

I pose that the reason they are responding to any criticism with this label, regardless of how little being a jew has to do with the criticism, is because they want to use the desensitization to the word to build in a whataboutism for the speech and attacks they plan to launch against american jews, as they've launched in quiet for years. They just want to say the quiet parts out loud without making the nation recoil.

I've been thinking about this, and idk why that would be a problem. Young people on both sides of the aisle like her music. She has plenty of conservative fans just as she does liberal ones. So why do republicans hate that she simply tells people to vote? She's not demanding they vote a certain way, she's not sitting in the voting booth with them, she simply is asking people to register and vote.

The only reason I can think that there's a problem is because republicans are afraid of high voter turnout. But since they insist their candidates are the most popular in history, I couldn't fathom that being the case. So what gives?

let me visualize this question with an example. Ill use myself

I am a libertarian, I am not left or right, im a mix of the two. Socially liberal, economically conservative (YES, you can be both at the same time, they are mutually exclusive)

I vote for a mix of repubs and dems locally in my state, but starting 2020, I have voted 3rd party on every single national election except 1 senator. I likely will not vote for the 2 main parties on a national level, because they both bring problems that hurt my material conditions as a voter.

both parties at the national level have severe issues that causes me to not vote for them, but I am willing to compromise to get things that help me

Democrats: Give me a democrat who will 1) advocate for lower taxes, 2) not touch guns, and 3) not take bribes from corporations via citizens united, I would vote for that person in a heartbeat. Id compromise on all the stupid virtue signaling social bullshit the purple haired tiktok people are ree-ing about

Republicans: give me a republican who will 1) advocate for lower military budgets, 2) chill on the pro life stuff, and 3) not take bribes from corporations via citizens united, id vote for them in a heartbeat. Id compromise on all the religious bullshit they keep ree-ing about

now if you just read that, you might notice the same problem i do.....NO ONE LIKE THIS exists in these parties. I think Gary Johnson was a Democrat in New Mexico, but other than that....nothing on a national level.

But, as a 3rd party voter, these are the concessions id make to vote for 1 of the two mainstream parties.

I pose this question to you now.

Democrats and Republicans, I know you both HATE your own party, lets not deny it here, they suck.

What concessions from the parties and what compromises would you make that would lead you to vote the opposite way?

​

Statism, noun: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

As a libertarian, this makes me puke, but I want some input from the left and right here as well

PLEASE DO NOT BRING FASCIST TALKING POINTS HERE

A book, The Making of Mussolini, published in 1938 by a professor of history at Queens College and a writer on Italy, Gaudens Megaro, maintains that “[Mussolini] was never a reformist, but always an extreme left or revolutionary socialist.” Megaro was anti-Fascist, making his strongest claims against Mussolini in his last chapter. Still, he referred to Mussolini as belonging to the “left” and a “revolutionary socialist.” How can a revolutionary socialist be on the right?

Seems that Churchill is saying that Fascism and Communism are very similar. He also wrote that "Fascism was the shadow or ugly child of Communism." (The Gathering Storm, vol. 1, 1948) Shouldn't Communism and Fascism be on the same political side as authoritarian socialist competitors -- both either sitting on the Left or the Right, together? They cannot be polar opposites as Stalin started to maintain after the Hitler-Stalin Pact was broken in 1941.

Lets begin with Why I’m a libertarian:

Firstly, I don’t want to compare my ideas against perfection, no political party is worth a damn if you do that, I want to compare them to the status quo. I want to be very clear here, I am not going to tell you that libertarianism is going to feed the most mouths, I’m not going to tell you that it’s going to pull the most people out of poverty, I’m not going to tell you that it is going to promote kind of social norm that you want, I’m not gonna tell you that it’s better or worse than the Democrat or republican party......well at least when it comes to CERTAIN things. What I will tell you, is that libertarianism will offer you an alternative to both of the other two main stream parties. In my view, whether republican or democrat, if you wanted to achieve the goals of those parties like cracking down on poverty, or strengthening the military or immigration or Throwing more money at public schools or Social Security or the IRS, what do all of these things have in common?

Well in my view, in order to achieve all of these things it all comes down to one common denominator, and that is the increase of government power. In order to achieve these things, you have to be willing to give the government more power, more money, and more control. This is where I return to libertarianism, because I view the increase of government power either from the Democrat or Republican perspective as a bad thing, period. I believe that with more power and with the centralization of power which we see both parties trying to do, that comes with the likelihood and in my opinion a very very very large likelihood, that power will be miss used and will be used to oppress people. That’s why I am a libertarian, because I see libertarianism more than anything is a rejection of the expansion of government power, and the mitigation of the possibility that the government will oppress people. If the government is limited in its power, it’s limited in its ability to oppress people, that’s why I became a libertarian. I think that both parties are the same insofar in that they want to increase government power and Weaponize it, Albeit for different reasons, but it doesn’t really matter, I think that the increase in power is a red flag no matter what the purpose is because there’s still a high possibility that that power can be Weaponized as long as you set the precedent. Let’s not pretend that both parties are not guilty of this, we can turn to history to prove this.

Fdr for example. He won a trifecta in government and by surrounding himself with yes men and bullying the Supreme Court (by threatening to pack the court unless they agreed to allow the new deal that they previously deemed unconstitutional) using propaganda to get public approval, he was able to consolidate and centralize soooo much power in the presidency that when he put Japanese Americans in concentration camps or confiscated peoples wealth (gold confiscation act), no one could stop him. He was basically a king and had no checks and balances to keep him from enacting nazi policies.

I’m a libertarian because I don’t want people like FDR to ever hold power ever again.

A lot of people have a big criticism of libertarianism that seeks to abolish democracy and hand power over to corporations when in their view democracy is the best check on corruption. My response to that is that while I can see that being true only on paper, look at what we have today. Again I’m not comparing my ideas to perfection I’m comparing them to the status quo. I would argue that democracy hasn’t really served us well lately, IF you even can call America today a democracy, its more of an oligarchy with extra steps. "Democracy" gave us Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden. We also have laws in place made by people put in place through democracy that allow for politicians to take legalized bribes from billionaire corporations. I understand that you like democracy, but if we’re going to be intellectually honest we need to acknowledge that it has its flaws, and democratically elected people can do bad things (back to my example with FDRs concentration camps), and democracy is not always going to fix problems, so I personally would rather see that power taken away then potentially be miss used. There are people who will vote for their own oppression. There are people who won’t vote against corruption. There are people who have been conditioned to hate “the other side” more than they care about fixing issues. And I’m not going to tell you that you should trust corporations over the government, I think that corporations are equally untrustworthy to the government, but in my opinion I do think that corporations are a lot easier to keep in check then politicians are. Corporations are only beholden to money, whereas politicians are not really beholden to anyone, they are beholden to POWER and then sell that power to the highest bidder, they certainly aren’t beholden to their voters. It’s much harder for citizens to keep politicians in check when their power comes from a system they have rigged to make it so they can stay in power for as long as possible.

To get a better idea of how I feel about this, think of the Catholic church back in the day. The Catholic Church was basically the government, it made all the rules and laws and collected taxes. Additionally, its main goal was to convert as many people to Catholicism as possible, and those who disagreed were labeled heretics and were persecuted. This is why we saw a lot of the first people come to America, because they were trying to escape religious persecution and they wanted to find freedom and a new land even if it meant having to colonize a wilderness area. That’s how I view political parties today at least the main two political parties. They are trying to consolidate as much power as possible, and if you don’t conform to their ideologies, They’re going to label you a heretic and try to persecute you as much as possible. We see this in red and blue states where they try to do gerrymandering and voter suppression to prevent opposing political parties from having any sort of foothold in local government (California, New York, Michigan, Alabama, and Mississippi are like the worst in voter suppression). It’s just the nature of how parties operate and how they try to preserve their own power. The reason why I’m a libertarian is because I want this power to be dismantled and I want political parties to lose their teeth. In my ideal world, parties would not exist, it would just be a bunch of individuals rather than groupthink that Eventually inevitably turns everybody into single issue voters forcing them to compromise on so many things that they believe in.

Part 2:

My problem with repubs an dems and why the lesser of 2 evils fallacy is parroted by idiots

My issue with both of these political parties is that they both seek to increase government power to accomplish kind of similar goals in my view. The republican party wants to increase government power and dismantle social policies all in some kind of effort to go back to a more traditional time. It’s kind of nebulous While also serving their corporate donors. The Democrat party wants to increase government power and dismantle social policies and economic liberties in order to achieve some kind of nebulous “equitable” society (which is never really defined and never really has any parameters around it, equity just going by what people say is equitable seems to mean reversing inequality rather than ending it) while also serving their corporate donors.

In this way, I kind of see both sides as two sides of the same evil coin. They both want to increase government power which in my opinion is the worst evil that there is, they just want to accomplish slightly different goals with it. Their main objective seems to be this kind of weird social reforming that in order to achieve it forces citizens to sacrifice liberties of some kind usually a combination of economic and social liberties. It’s kind of a hallmark of totalitarianism, when you go for some kind of very big overarching social reform and in order to get there you have to take away freedoms from your citizens. Now both parties try to sell this in a very attractive way by making you believe that they’re actually giving you freedom when they are in reality trying to take it away. For example Republicans will often talk about like tax cuts and how Giving more money to the military means that we’re going to be better protected somehow, while Democrats argue that a strong welfare state is going to like fix poverty and school choice is a bad thing and it’s more freedom if we limited to a single public school system. Both parties try to spin their ideas in a way that sounds like it’s giving you something, but in reality it’s taking things away from you, limiting your choice, and ultimately Dismantling liberty.

The experiment was simple. With minimum user input, how long would it take for a new youtuber to descend into political conspiracy theory.

I set up 2 new YouTube channels, had one search The Young Turks, and one Newsmax. I chose these because they are undeniably left, and undeniably right. I clicked the first video suggested that came up and let it roll.

After an hour, I would close whatever video, check the history for headlines that seemed bonkers, and if there weren't any, I went back to the home screen and started the first suggested video.

Had I seen any, I'd have looked up the video on my personal YouTube and seen if it was a grubby headline, or if there was actually crazy in it.

My prediction was that after a few days, we would find Alex Jones "they're making the frogs gay" on the right and that ultimately the right would delve into conspiracy first.

Now that I've explain my experiment/hypothesis. Let me tell you my results.

It took 1 hour 40 minutes and 2 user inputs (the initial search, and the first suggested video at the end of the first hours) for the right to start on conspiracy. It was doomed when tucker Carlson on X came up as the first suggested video. After that first video ended the very next one that came up was the interview with the man claiming to be Obamas secret gay lover in a drug fueled college affair. Which I'm sorry, is definitely conspiracy nonsense.

So it takes a right wingers 1 hour and 40 minutes to get into conspiracy theories and I stopped the experiment there.

I wanted to put this out. The experiment screenshots are on my page showing the start of the experiment, the YouTube history, and the videos running when I realized the right had entered conspiracy. So you guys can look at it. Ultimately I want to debate the efficacy of this experiment. I was surprised with the speed of the result but not the result itself I also want to hear suggestions on ways I can run this through and do it again but better.

Bernie Sanders proposed earlier this year that a 100% tax rate be applied on all money earned starting at $1 billion. That would be poor policy with many flaws:

1. Basic property rights.This is where Sanders' unAmerican philosophy shines through. It is a fundamental human right to own property. Also an American right, and an economic right. Indeed, it is enshrined in all major Declarations of Human Rights.Taxation is reasonable and necessary. Confiscatory taxes - and this is an extreme one - are violative of rights.
2. Practicality.Particularly at that high level of wealth, the wealth is not reflected by earned wages. It is held in beneficial ownership of entities, which which the wealthy person can borrow against. So Sanders' proposal is a bit simple-minded. As is his understanding of economics generally.
3. Camel's Nose.The range of earners that this policy targets is sure to drop. Today, $1 billion. In a few years, $50 million. And on down the line.
4. Economic Harm.The wealth of these people is a driver of economic activity and innovation. You can't start SpaceX and Blue Origin out of your personal fortune when the government confiscates almost all of it. Every year.
5. Lack of Impact.There are fewer than 800 billionaires in the US. The money gained will make no difference in US budgeting. The national debt is rising by $1 million per second. This tax will make no meaningful difference.

The proposed tax is not rooted in wisdom, or economics. It's another reflection of part of Bernie Sanders' personality: he is just kind of a bitter, hate-filled man. He wants to stick it to rich (and the upper middle class) whether or not it would actually help the country. He also knows that a good portion of his supporters eat this stuff up. In fact, they literally say things like, 'Eat the Rich'.

Notably, Sanders' tax policy history is well-established as a disaster-in-waiting. For example, the Tax Foundation's analysis of Sanders' tax plan in the 2016 campaign found that it would result in:

• 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers,
• 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent, and
• When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent.

To be conservative means to conserve something, but what we are trying to conserve seems to mean something different between one individual and another. That disconnect, I feel, leads to a lot of the fragmentation and stand-still of the right-leaning and conservative-leaning parties. I grew up in a very Libertarian and Christian household, so my idea of American Conservatism stems from the Federalist Papers, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the ideas of limited government and personal liberty seen through a Judeo-Christian lens. I'm also very pro-capitalism, yet anti-corporation, and I was against Big Pharma before it was cool.

However, I know that many conservatives have very different ideas, and that word can mean different things in different parts of the world. A modern Conservative might be the Liberal of thirty years ago, or another Conservative might yearn for the days of a papal-appointed monarchy. Some people are focused on conserving Western civilization and ideals as a whole. It all depends on where you draw the line. What values are we trying to preserve?