There's been an increase in upset lately at the user toastermaid and their posts. There's also been reports; but those reports are not helpful: they say things like 'ban pls' or 'why isn't this user banned'. But those are not helpful reports because both it doesn't explain which of the existing rules they are violating, and because the report system does not allow for responding to the person reporting, so there's no way to get those details, nor to explain the situation to the reporter. If you have uncertainy about a thing like that it's better to use modmail so we can actually explain the thought process involved.

At any rate, there have been a number of complaints about that user and their posts, so I will ask: does the sub wish to make a change to the rules in some way to deal with them? If so what would that change be? In general, posting stupid opinions is not against the rules, not even very stupid opinions. Nor do we estimate them to be a chinese agent.

While meta discussion is allowed in this thread, keep in mind that I don't know how to adjust the Automod, so it may well still remove things with certain kinds of meta words; I can override it for individual posts, but may not notice such promptly. So try to avoid things that trigger the automod.

For many years, politicians from various countries have found a way to seek asylum overseas after their political struggles end in failure. They usually go to Western countries, including the United States, or other Western nations. Undoubtedly, the ultimate backing for this strategy lies in the global position of the United States.

However, if American politicians or their family members wanted to seek asylum overseas, where could they go?

While this hasn't happened in the past, it's not impossible in the future. Let's imagine a scenario: after losing the 2024 election, Trump and his supporters refuse to accept the results and cause significant unrest, leading to several violent incidents. The established powers determined to permanently eliminate Trump's political threat. Would Trump consider fleeing the country at that time? What if there were assassination attempts against him during this period? Or, for example, if Biden's son Hunter's case resurfaced after Trump took office? If Biden lost the election and then passed away, would Hunter Biden, without the protection umbrella, face relentless attacks to prove the dark side of Biden's four-year rule? Would Biden's family also consider seeking asylum overseas?

It is evident that Western countries would not be a viable option for American politicians seeking exile. They would likely be easily extradited to the United States. The same applies to most developing countries. What about countries that oppose the United States, such as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea? Personally, I don't think North Korea would be a suitable choice, given their unfamiliarity and high level of secrecy. As for Iran, there is a significant animosity towards American politicians, and the internal management of the Iranian government may also pose some problems. Moreover, if the new president and Iran were to reconcile, it would be entirely possible for exiled politicians to be handed over to the United States as part of the deal. Russia might be more stable than Iran, but there is still a possibility of being betrayed by Putin. Furthermore, even if Putin doesn't betray them, due to Russia's tradition of foreign political interference by its intelligence agencies, they could easily become pawns in Putin's efforts to meddle in American domestic affairs.

After careful consideration, China seems to be the most secure option, provided China is willing to accept them. China has always emphasized keeping promises and often maintains a long-term policy without wavering. If China is willing to accept them, there is a great chance that they would not be extradited in the future. From the perspective of the victors in the political struggle, this would be a favorable outcome. In the short term, they could use these exiled politicians to counter their own political opponents. In the long run, if China promises not to allow exiled politicians to interfere in American politics, that commitment is likely to remain valid for a long time.

In conclusion, the idea of American politicians seeking asylum overseas and becoming exiles is something that deserves serious consideration and contingency planning amidst the escalating internal strife in the United States.

I know that he killed 17 Million people, But he is over hated there are alot of dictators and leaders who killed more people (Jozef Stalin 23M deaths) and (Mao Zedong 49-78M deaths), And are not hated like Hitler and they were around the same time.

For the sake of my opinion, I'm defining "woke" thusly:

"Being aware of some sort of societal issue or injustice that their peers might not be aware of and unwittingly allowing to continue"

People are "asleep" to something, so the forces screwing them over can get off scott free because the people they're screwing over don't know if. You wake up and see what's happening? You're now woke.

The typical meaning associated with American leftism, I'd say, is because of the fact that the societal issues people are waking up to are things that actively benefit the American right. So because all of the woke people disagree with you, you turn it into an insult so detached from its meaning that people dislike it but can't even define it.

Anyhow, I say it's about perspective. You don't have to be left to be woke. You don't have to be right (as in correct) to be woke. If you believe you're clued in to something going on and you're ringing the alarm bells so other people also know about it and can do something?

"Wake up, sheeple", anyone? If you're telling them to wake up, you must already be awake. And if you're already awake?

You're woke.

That's my treatise on why using "woke" as an insult is stupid and why people should focus more on what made the person wake up in the first place.

If you had asked me this question a few years ago, my answer, like many others, would have focused on issues like racial tensions, economic problems, or the challenge from China. However, today, I believe the most serious problem is the incompetence of the central government. This is a "meta-problem" because it makes it impossible to solve other major problems. No matter what strategy you think the US should adopt, its implementation requires a competent federal government to lead. And today, the US has lost that ability.

There are two main manifestations of this central incompetence:

• Firstly, the top positions have been continuously occupied by people with low administrative capabilities for the past 20 years, starting with George W. Bush. Biden brings a glimmer of hope, but only if he can fully delegate power to technocrats without losing control. While not as hopeless as the Trump era, it's not easy. Even if he succeeds, there will be big trouble in four years, as the radical wing of the Democratic Party is likely to rise.
• Secondly, there is too much political infighting, not only between the two parties but also between populists and the establishment, and even among populists themselves.

In light of this, I propose that the US abolish the presidential system and replace it with a "Supreme Triumvirate" system. The triumvirate would consist of two "civilian representatives" and one "military representative". The civilian representatives would be elected, with each party only allowed to nominate one candidate. The military representative would be elected by a congress of all US military officers above the rank of captain.

Any matter that can be decided by the president would be decided by the triumvirate, with the minority obeying the majority. The intelligence services would ensure communication within the triumvirate, just as they do for the nuclear command chain.

The two civilian representatives would most likely be one Democrat and one Republican, which would give both parties executive power and greatly reduce infighting. If they still want to fight to the death, that's fine. If the civilian representatives are always opposed to each other, it is equivalent to handing over executive power to the military representative. The latter can transcend partisanship and is likely to have political experience and respect for technocrats (otherwise they would not be elected by senior military officers). It would be difficult for populists to gain prominence under the triumvirate system.

The triumvirate would have to hold serious meetings and discussions before making any major decisions. Each person would have a team and a position, avoiding one-man rule or decisions made by a small, homogeneous circle of people. This discussion and decision-making would also provide a stage for technocrats to play a role.

The election terms of the civilian and military representatives would be set to be different (two years apart), which would ensure a certain degree of policy continuity. The old guard could also guide the new, improving the level of transition of power and preventing other major powers from taking too much advantage of the US during the transition period.

Considering that Americans can still vote, that professional soldiers are still relatively respected, and that Americans are tired of having to vote for someone's opponent because they hate that person, this proposal may be quite attractive to Americans.

So I'm looking for feedback about a hypothetical bill proposal from a political action committee to create a law that prevents members of Congress who serve on committees and their immediate family members from owning stock in the companies they regulate.

Is this missing anything? Are their benefits to allowing Congress members to continue trading stocks in companies that they oversee?

Penalties mirror those enforced by the SEC for insider trading.

A BILL

To prohibit members of Congress who hold positions on committees from buying, selling, or holding any stock in companies that are subject to legislation and regulation by their respective committees.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This resolution may be cited as the "Stopping Transactions Of Congressional Knowledge For Regulated Entities Act" (STOCK-FREE Act).

SECTION 2. PROHIBITION ON STOCK OWNERSHIP.

(a) Members of Congress: No member of Congress serving on a federal committee shall purchase, sell, or hold any stock in a company that is subject to legislation or regulation by the committee they serve on.
(b) Immediate Family Members: Immediate family members of members of Congress serving on federal committees are also prohibited from purchasing, selling, or holding any stock in companies regulated by the committee.
(c) Active Senate Members: Active members of the Senate are also subject to the provisions of this Act, extending the prohibition to Senate members serving on federal committees and their immediate family members.

SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT

(a) Disclosure: Members of Congress serving on federal committees shall disclose any existing stock holdings in companies regulated by their committee within 30 days of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Immediate Penalty for Members of Congress:

(1) Expulsion: Any member of Congress found to be in violation of this Act shall be immediately expelled from their position.

(c) General Penalties for Members of Congress:

(1) Prison Sentence: Violation of this Act by a member of Congress shall result in a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

(2) Criminal Fines: Members of Congress found in violation shall be subject to criminal fines not exceeding $10,000,000 for each violation.

(d) Penalties for Immediate Family Members:

(1) Civil Fines: Immediate family members of members of Congress serving on federal committees found to be in violation shall be subject to civil fines not exceeding $5,000,000 for each violation.

(2) Criminal Fines: Immediate family members found to be in violation shall be subject to criminal fines not exceeding $5,000,000 for each violation, and may also face a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

(e) Additional Remedies:

(1) Injunction: Violators may be subject to an injunction prohibiting further violations of this Act.

(2) Disgorgement of Profits/Losses: Violators may be required to disgorge any profits gained or losses avoided as a result of the insider trading violation.
(3) Treble Damages: The penalty for a violator may be an amount up to three times the profit gained or loss avoided as a result of the insider trading violation.
SECTION 4. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Blind Trust: Members of Congress may place their stock holdings in a blind trust managed by an independent trustee who has no connection to companies regulated by their committee.
(b) Existing Holdings: Members of Congress and their immediate family members with existing stock holdings in companies regulated by their committee shall have a grace period of 90 days from the enactment of this Act to divest from such holdings.

SECTION 5. IMPLEMENTATION.

This Act shall take effect 90 days after its enactment into law.

Bill Maher has always been a cynic, however in the past his cynicism fit his stage in life. His go to would be to state some controversial political opinion with a dose of comedy. Usually his target was conservatives and the Republican Party, but Maher generally had a rule. He hated everyone. In the past, Maher was more comfortable. He grew up in the 60s and 70s and it was really easy to tell who the man was. Those grouchy old men in their ivory towers. He was raised during a time when being young was a cultural identity.

Fast forward to the present and Maher is having an internal crisis. He's old and he's going to die. Bill Maher is 68 years old. He was born in 1956. He's a boomer and in the uncool generation now. He's caught between the youthful cultural identity of his past and the present where his perspective is slowly losing relevance.

For a man's whose generation has been relevant from the day they were born, this is agonizing for Maher and he's lashing out. Saying all sorts of things for attention. Attack anyone - left, right, center.

It would be fun if it wasn't so painful to watch. Luckily few are actually watching.

don't know if anyone feels the same way, but I feel like both political parties are becoming to extreme and corrupt for their own good. I mean like everywhere I see politics I feel like it always goes along the lines of "dumb democrat" or "stupid republican". I feel like that these parties have been overrun with extremists speaking over the voices of typical people and honestly think it makes it difficult to associate with either of these parties. Does anyone else feel the same way?

In this era of the US we have an unheard of migrants entering the country like we have never seen before in the countries 250 year history. My opinion is that migrants have the potential to add such great things to the US but it terrifies me that there is not a solid way to verify all of those that enter the country. There are many ideas as how to do that and each has it's merits. But I have heard opinions that people feel that the Democrat party wants migrants to come in so they can get more votes. Is this even possible or are they just wanting to help those fleeing horrible situations in their home country?

My opinion of the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas is that the Senate should have done a trial. It is my understanding that when articles of impeachment are brought to the Senate it is their duty to hold a trial. I don't believe to be legal to not hold a trial.

My first point of remarkability comes from the sharp distinction that Liberals and Nazis make between themselves, however, in the Netherlands, the Dutch with pre-natal testing are now able to abort 95% of the foetuses who have the genetic markers for Down Syndrome.

My question is that, is it objectionable only when the methods to remove a group from society is through overt, dramatic and state-led methods such as genocide and mass murder versus from below through individual choices and covert methods such as abortion?

I'm not making a link between Liberalism and Nazism, however in this case, the means are different, but the outcomes (ends) are the same, the destruction of a group of people. And we mustn't forget that the Nazis were after the disabled too. Which is what those with DS are classified as.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/

My polls on this issue:

(Votes are cast by forums with a supermajority of those in the West):

[DISCUSSION] [POLL] Nazis wanted to exterminate the disabled, In Denmark, prenatal testing has lead to a 95% abortion rate for those with a heightened possibility of Down Syndrome, this has been achieved not through the power of the state, but individual choice. Is This Irony Evident To You? : r/WhatsMyIdeology (reddit.com)

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdeologyPolls/comments/154jz77/nazis\_wanted\_to\_exterminate\_the\_disabled\_in/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button

My second point of remarkability comes from the fact that abortion, much like the paradox of tolerance, represents an issue not just for Liberals, but for those Conservatives who support abortion (population control vs individual choice) and Leftists. And those are ultra-traditional and traditional, who have a multitude of children, anywhere from 6 to 13.

As the population of the ultra-traditional and traditional increase in countries which don't repress such peoples (example of repression People's Republic of China, North Korea, etc.), the populations of those who support abortion for a variety of reasons [individual choice, population control, personhood starts after birth or adult rituals (where infanticide can also be justified, although this is not a pre-requisite, as other societies like India also used to have a well-observed practice of infanticide in regions)], will fall gradually over time (in the World this could be from 1-300 years), while those who have a lot of children, may be small in number but would eventually come to make up the largest proportion of population in the country.

This is visible in a fast pace (in demographic terms) in Israel, where the Haredim used to make up a small proportion of the population of Israel in 1949, about 3.5%, but now roughly make up about 13.5% of the population of Israel, and by 2050 would be about 24%. They had 7.5-8.5 TFR (Total Fertility Ratio, that is the total number of children a woman has through her lifetime), and now have 6.5-7.5 TFR, while Conservative Jews have a TFR of 3, the Liberal and Reformist Jews have about 2.

A Third of Israeli Jews Will Be ultra-Orthodox by 2050, Forecast Finds - Haaretz Com - Haaretz.com (archive.org)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-1-in-4-israelis-will-be-ultra-orthodox-by-2050-study-says/

My Observations:

Senseito Party, a party considered more to the right of the long-reelected Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has won the seat of Okinawa Prefecture from them, OP has the highest birth rate in the entirety of Japan.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/08/08/national/politics-diplomacy/okinawa-sanseito-popularity/

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14836699#:\~:text=Okinawa%20Prefecture's%20fertility%20rate%2C%20or,population%20decline%20in%20February%202021

https://mercatornet.com/islands-of-fertility-in-east-asia-okinawa-and-amazingly-north-korea/24500/

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3042812/fertility-secrets-okinawa-give-birth-hope-sexless

Correlation is not causation, but it makes you think doesn't it? :D

While the UN Population Study for the year 2300 (made in the year 2002) has many ranges for population in the year 2300, the lowest population projections would be for the lowest birth rates, high education in women, widespread contraception, small family sizes, etc. While not in the study, higher abortion levels, suppression of religion and birth abstinence would likely lead to lower population than the lowest range in this study. It's important to point out that the Haredi work, but women work more. They work quite a bit in the IT industry, so work and education in women, shouldn't be taken as a force which uniformly reduces birth rates, although it does in most cases and groups of women. Haredi men work, but at lower rates than the women, because they have to study the old religious texts, supported by government subsidy and are not conscripted (one could say their job is to preserve living heritage versus museum heritage).

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un\_2002\_world\_population\_to\_2300.pdf

From Seminary to Startup Nation: Could Haredi women propel Israel's tech boom? | Ctech (calcalistech.com)

A pretty up-to-date study by the Lancet, shows that widespread contraception and female education would lead to their lowest range by 2100 (which is pretty low), even so, following current trends (extrapolated) would lead to about 8.3-8.6 billion by 2100, which is lower than UN projections, even if they are from 2022 (their study shows 10.4 billion).

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf (un.org) [top of page 9 of the PDF, or (ii) of the document]

The Amish Birth rate is pretty high, but it depends on the external economy which they trade with, but those birth rates don't fall below the replacement rate or even get close to it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8417155/#:\~:text=While%20Amish%20mortality%20rates%20dropped,Amish%20woman%20 (this link specifically highlights the TFR of 6 to 8, but you can read the rest of the study to get a full understanding as I did).

US Pentecostals and non-denominational Christians among others to have 2.4 birth rate:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/americas-growing-religious-secular-fertility-divide

African Century from population growth:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/13/africa-century-economic-growth/

However African birth rates in most sub-saharan countries are also close to replacement when infant and child mortality is considered (I cannot locate this study), even without that study, I have studies which show the persistence and uneven transition to replacement fertility and the conflict with large family sizes and high fertility, pro-natalism and low family planning versus unmet contraception needs in women (the conflict can be in women too, who may want large families but also want contraception) and the other study covers the high mortality in under-5s and at the other end of the age bracket (cross-pressured mortality rates):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011385/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00337-0/fulltext

My polls related to this are:

(Votes are cast by forums with a supermajority of those in the West):

[POLL] A pro-abortion stance is a logical paradox for liberals in the long run. : r/IdeologyPolls (reddit.com)

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhatsMyIdeology/comments/137cfos/poll\_discussion\_a\_proabortion\_stance\_is\_a\_logical/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button

My third point of remarkability while it only has one data point that I'm aware of and is publicly available on a wide number of sources, is that those who have a large number of children, regardless of their ideology, but as shown earlier, are likely to be more conservative than average or some variant of traditional or ultra-traditional, would see the largest number of LGBT+ people born to them, imagine that, those who are "pro-life" would have the most number of the group of people that western progressives are currently championing for at this moment. If we assume that Western Progressives are correct and that being LGBT+ is more about biology than society (maybe to establish these as essential traits to them, which I also find ironical, since they argue against essentialism when it comes to "cisheteronormativity", or that the normal baseline is normal and essential in the West, but that's an observation for another time) then those that have the most children and those who are in support of having the most children, would also have the most LGBT+ children potentially.

The only data point I have is Elon Musk's child who legally separated from him:

Elon Musk: Billionaire's daughter cuts ties with her father (bbc.com)

My Fourth Point of Remarkability (axiomatic) those capitalists and socialists who support abortion, are merely reducing their own future consumers, manufacturers, producers, workers, administrators, etc. leading potentially to their inexorable self-extinction.

Not to beat a dead horse like a cooky, old and cough-ridden conservative, but I find all these amusingly and highly ironic.

:D

The issue of illegal immigration has become a significant domestic concern in the United States, particularly for Trump supporters who strongly oppose it. However, it might not be easy for Trump to handle the situation using conventional methods, considering the challenges he faced in his first term when attempting to build a wall.

If he were to be reelected, I believe a different approach would be necessary to address illegal immigration. Here's a proposed plan:

Firstly, deploy various anti-immigration militias to the border to apprehend as many illegal immigrants as possible. While it may not be possible to catch them all, capturing a substantial number would certainly be feasible. Next, have military aircraft continuously transport these illegal immigrants to U.S. military bases in Germany. Once they reach the bases, release them onto German soil. Rest assured, Germany would be unable to retaliate against the United States. What could they do to American military aircraft? Shoot them down? Firstly, they lack the audacity to open fire on U.S. forces. Secondly, the loss of hundreds of lives in a downed aircraft would be unacceptable for Germany in terms of public opinion.

By releasing these individuals into German society, Germany would have no choice but to accept them. After all, Germany has already shown considerable weakness during the Middle East refugee crisis and the Ukraine refugee crisis, and there is a significant "white left" movement within the country.

In this way, although Trump may not be able to completely seal the border with Mexico, the United States could simultaneously allow water to flow in and out of the "pool."

As for the political pressure on Germany, that would naturally be their burden to bear. Besides, Germany's "white left" government does not have a favorable view of Trump, so this would be his way of counterattacking.

If Trump wants to be more strategic, he could claim that as long as the German people vote for AFD (Alternative for Germany) to come to power, he will stop sending refugees to Germany. This would demonstrate that the German people are against refugees, and the United States would naturally not impose any difficulties. If AFD doesn't come to power, it would indicate that the German people fundamentally do not oppose illegal immigration. In that case, why should I, Trump, stop?

This approach would effectively encourage AFD's electoral support. If they were to come to power, right-wing forces in Europe would gain momentum, which would benefit Trump's foreign policy. In the event that AFD does come to power, would the United States then cease sending illegal immigrants to Germany? Of course, they would be our ally.

At that point, we can explore other European countries with left-wing governments where U.S. military bases are located and transfer the illegal immigrants there. Additionally, Germany could even apprehend illegal immigrants within its own borders and send them via American aircraft to those countries. AFD would not only come to power but also find a way to indirectly remove illegal refugees. This way, both Germany and the Trump administration would win.

I think Trump should win the election because Americans deserve it.

Truly an unpopular opinion.

America since the 1960s Nixon Administration has repeatedly made mistakes and have caused international democracies to collapse, multiply the carbon emissions by unpredictable levels, and run a iron first against Europe until the 1990s when it fully recovered economically from WWII.

American people are among the most ignorant cultures in the world. Culture shock is not only a universal "American" thing, the expectation to be treated by a guest in every country they visit is the most insulting thing about their culture. Americans assume they run the world, and thus demand respect in any country they are. I have traveled the world and I have heard my fair share of "I'm an American citizen and am not ever used to this treatment, i dont deserve this." Your nationality doesnt excuse you from fucking with thier laws.

America's education system has failed, it was failing in Bush-Obama and collapsed entirely in Trumps and Bidens. Most kids in America cannot read. Americans currently March the streets supporting people who would and did bomb them with airplanes and destroy everything about American culture. Their ignorance would be excused if it was a minority, like many countries, however this is not the condition.

A country that was built on democracy and freedom constantly will be fighting for it for decades. Elimate the issue and run. No matter the party, American citizens will still think the government is on their side when it is infamously one of the most corrupt in the world.

Trump and American dictatorship should happen because Americans never learned. They let Republicans win everytime they should have lost (1986, 2000, 2004, 2016) and refuse to go on the streets to protest their own government, instead protesting wars in other nations that have no application to them. This is because of the ignorant belief in American culture that they control the world, when in fact they only control it because the world was in a Post-War era. Now that it isn't, America won't be necessary to meet the needs of the world, and because of that, it is collapsing every year.

I say let it fall, put a dictator in office, and make Americans realize they could have avoided this for the last 40 years if they stood up against their oppressors.

Also, if you support Iran's Islamic Republic, why not become a Christian Republic? America deserves its dream of a Christian Republic where Arabs, Jews, and everybody they deem not Christian are expelled.

From - An American fortunate enough to have not had to grow up in the country and move away in 2013 with family.

Originally tried posting in unpopularopinion but politics is banned.

Sources:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/education/students-cant-read-education/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2024/03/13/excessive-federal-spending-puts-america-on-collision-course-with-insolvency/?sh=4c0809285319

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/04/qanon-christian-extremism-nationalism-violence-466034

Hi,

There are several angles one can take on questioning if the Republicans are consistently defending a capitalistic system, but I'm going to focus here on the standard Republican approaches to Climate Change Policy. The standard Republican approaches include:

• decrying the scientific results as politically-motivated (i.e.: socialists in search of a pretext to tax and to elevate concern for the environment over human endeavor) but without addressing smartly and correctly the reality of the scientific results.
• decrying any form of penalty (whether a simple tax or some other mechanism) on polluting behavior (eg: a Carbon Tax) as anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom, etc.

My contention is that under a limited government suitable to protecting and promoting a laissez-faire capitalistic society, a key job (perhaps "the" job, depending on how one defines certain things) is to defend property rights, with all that this entails. This includes for example:

• serving as a recourse for resolving contractual disputes.
• identifying and addressing where a party or parties damage the health or property of others, whether through deliberate breaches of agreements, or through other means.

On this latter point, my contention is that polluting into property held in common is a form of property damage that the government should (as a central part of its job, under a freedom-oriented actual capitalistic system) seek to identify, define and ultimately regulate. If, through appropriate extensive scientific study, the problem is found to be very likely potentially a life and death problem for millions or billions of people now and in the future, then the measures taken should be strong measures, both preventative and punitive.

Since some of the property damage occurs to property held in common (i.e.: the air we breath, the water of the ocean, public lands, etc.) it is often held by some defenders of laissez-faire capitalism (including I'm estimating a fair number of Republicans) that the government has no role in regulating the polluting behavior.

Further, many defenders of the system seem to contend that damages done to privately-held property are not provably directly resulting from a generalized form of pollution and so also should not be tackled by a government that is otherwise said to be defined by its role in protecting property rights.

So, I'd say there is a multi-pronged effort here, by the Republicans, to keep the government from doing a job that is suitable to a laissez-faire system.

1. First, I think there should be some extended discussion among Republicans as to whether property held in common can be thought of as the proper concern of government protection. If so, then this would help revise the thinking such that Republicans might view government involvement as fully appropriate in acting to help prevent mass deaths and massive loss of property and quality of life that we are warned about so strongly by so many professional scientists. But, as it is, the silence on this topic, and the active Republican resistance to virtually all efforts to identify real environmental threats and act to counter them, are contrary to a government doing its job suitable to a laissez-faire system.
2. Second, many Republicans insist on poor thinking when it comes to understanding the science of climate change. Enough time has passed, and enough empirical evidence has accumulated, such that we are well past the initial inquiry period, and are staring down the barrel of a clear global crisis that will be challenging to address. Under a laissez-faire system, it is not possible for a government to do a competent job of discerning actual environmental threat from doubtful alarmist thinking that is just be used as a political pretect.... the government can't do this job unless scientists are genuinely encouraged to speak up, and unless their points are heeded in a thoughtful way. Republican opposition to hearing and genuinely thinking about the actual evidence and concerns is a big impediment to a capitalism-protecting government doing its job. Once the science is better understood by those who presently simply don't want to understand it, Republicans should end their opposition to attributing property damage and loss of health and life to the proven environmental pollution problem. Attribution of mortality and property damage falls more under the heading of epidemiology than earth science, but Republican opposition to reasonable attribution efforts will end up getting more people killed and more property lost. Someone pointed out to me that attribution in the climate change problem is a little bit similar to attribution when discussing smoking and premature deaths. The serious epidemoilogy scientists do struggle to account for various variables and make confident statements, but in the meantime monied interests are able to stall action on a pressing issue that probably should not have to satisfy quite such a high bar for initial expensive government action.
3. ([edit to add]: another thing that Republicans seem to do typically here, which I think is in direct conflict with principles of a government suitable to a laissez-faire system, is they shoot down virtually all discussion of raising taxes as inherently inimical to freedom and capitalism. This is debatable! I would argue that if taxes, regulation and even reward policies for cleanup (perhaps funded by the tax receipts) are ever necessary and indicated under a capitalistic system, it is when millions of lives are threatened and strong policy measures become vitally important not only to prosecute property damages, but to act swiftly to stave off disastrous increased amounts of damage.)

If the US system, and other systems around the world, reflected the actual net damages being done by the changing climate, such that pollution was actually priced in to the economy and consumers could see it, and those most brazenly doing the polluting in violation of law were curbed in their behavior by a vigorous government campaign, I think this would actually amount to a system that is more capitalistic, and not less capitalistic.

First, we need to understand what the first island chain is before discussing whether it can be broken through or not. I will discuss it from three perspectives: military, economic, and ideological.

From a military perspective, the first island chain is a dual-lock chain between the Chinese and U.S. militaries, effectively restraining both countries from projecting military power in other regions and significantly reducing the possibility of escaping an arms race. This chain cannot be broken in the short term, and neither side can escape from it until the U.S. defects. This "inability to escape" includes the fact that neither side can break the chain by force or unilaterally withdraw from it.

Which side would be more disadvantaged by the inability to break this chain? It would be the United States, because time is on China's side, and the longer the stalemate continues, the more the balance of power (including military strength and overall national power) favors China.

From an economic perspective, the first island chain is a chain that binds together the economies of mainland China, the countries in the Western Pacific region, and the United States.

Although the initial purpose of the United States in creating the first island chain was to contain the Soviet Union and China, it realized that it had to support the economic development of certain countries in the process. The Korean War, for example, played a significant role in Japan's economic turnaround, and the Vietnam War further promoted the development of many countries in the Western Pacific region. Subsequently, the United States made some internal adjustments (such as upgrading industries in South Korea) to restrict the economic rise of Japan.

After the 1970s, the economies within the first island chain played a significant role in integrating China into the world. If it weren't for the Four Asian Tigers and Japan, but only the United States and Europe, it would have been much more challenging for China to develop rapidly since its reform and opening up. Not to mention the significant role played by Hong Kong and Taiwan in guiding China's development.

Of course, in the process of China's development, in order to utilize the island chain and seek assistance from the United States, there have been some economic contributions to the United States. However, it is evident who benefits more and who cannot sit still.

Currently, there is a close economic relationship between mainland China, the countries in the Western Pacific island chain, and the United States. It is not only extremely difficult for the United States to directly decouple from China economically, but it is even more impossible to decouple when considering the inclusion of other economies in the Western Pacific region. Even if China and the United States try to create some distance between them, the chain of Western Pacific economies serves as an intermediary.

Geographically, the first island chain runs north to south, but its economic impact runs east to west. It is a beneficial chain for China that should not be broken. It is also a good chain for the United States, but there are always some American politicians who are unclear in their thinking and overestimate their abilities, wanting to break it (but they never succeed).

From an ideological perspective, the first island chain is a dual-directional ideological chain between China and the United States that cannot be broken in the short term.

Let's start with the United States. The fact that they have troops stationed on the first island chain gives them a sense of illusory superiority and illusory security. Although it is clear that China can become a dominant power without breaking the island chain (as mentioned earlier, the chain actually greatly assists in enhancing China's overall national power), the main threat to the United States lies not in the unlikely possibility of China breaking the military stalemate, but in their internal conflicts and the uncertainty of their future as they slip into an economic second place. This illusory sense of superiority and security still hinders decisive action from the United States, and they often resort to inaction and minor skirmishes instead of taking the necessary significant actions.

On the Chinese side, the first island chain has created a sense of illusory encirclement and oppression among many Chinese people. At least based on the reflections seen on the internet, I am not optimistic about the Chinese people breaking this ideological chain in the short term.

So, which side is more harmed by this dual-directional ideological chain? It is the United States. Although the illusory feelings have motivated many Chinese people to take action, many of the things they have done should have been done regardless of the existence of the island chain, such as building ships and reducing dependence on oil. Therefore, China has not suffered much in concrete actions. On the other hand, the United States, under the illusion created by the island chain, has delayed various major strategic decisions, which is a significant loss.

However, looking to the future, the harm to China from the ideological chain may continue to increase. A typical example is the illusory sense of being encircled and oppressed that many Chinese people have, which severely limits or even misguides China's future diplomacy. This has led many people to find the idea of align to China unimaginable. It is my hope that this ideological chain can be broken through as soon as possible.

Let me analyze the losses that the United States incurred during the Ukrainian conflict. Overall, I believe that the United States sustained significant losses, primarily in the following areas.

1. The weakness of American military resolve was thoroughly exposed. This will have far-reaching implications for future decisions made by the United States, as well as decisions made by its main competitors and stakeholders.

I have consistently emphasized that in this war, military resolve was more important than military strength. For many leaders of countries, especially those who bear ultimate responsibility for security, the feasibility of many decisions ultimately depends on the perceived risk of U.S. military involvement. If the likelihood of U.S. military intervention is deemed very low, options that were previously not seriously considered can become viable alternatives.

I believe that many significant events are interconnected, with their key connections lying in the decision-making psychology of those individuals who hold the most power. For example, I have long suspected that China's willingness to conduct large-scale island-building in the South China Sea and Russia's actions in Crimea and the Syrian conflict are closely related to the weak military resolve of the Obama administration. I also suspect that Putin's bold actions in Ukraine were influenced by the weak military resolve and chaotic military intelligence organization demonstrated by the United States during the Afghanistan troop withdrawal last year. Especially considering that before this crisis, Ukraine had already experienced a previous crisis that Putin held back from escalating, whereas in this recent crisis, Putin not only escalated but did so to an unexpected extent.

The severity of the United States' retreat in Ukraine may surpass that of the Afghanistan drone incident, which could stimulate bold actions from various U.S. competitors in the coming years (some of which have already begun). The likelihood of a strong military response from the United States under the leadership of the same weak president is low, which could potentially lead to a vicious cycle.

2. The ability and determination of the United States to impose economic sanctions have been seriously questioned.

At the beginning of the sanctions against Russia, many people were concerned about the impact on Russia. However, over time, it became apparent that the sanctions imposed by the United States and the West had far less effect than anticipated. This severely undermines the deterrence capabilities of the United States for future economic warfare.

The core impact of economic sanctions lies in changing the economic expectations of countries around the world towards you. China's economic strength is already incomparable to that of Russia. During the trade war under the Trump administration, China demonstrated a strong will to fight against the United States and achieved significant victories. Coupled with the fact that the economic sanctions on Russia by the United States have not achieved the expected results, many people also doubt whether the United States will dare to impose comprehensive economic sanctions on China in the future. Even if sanctions were imposed, the United States might end up suffering greater losses, which is seen as reasonable by many observers. Therefore, if there are observers adopting a wait-and-see approach towards sanctions, it could further worsen the prospects for U.S. sanctions.

Furthermore, the fact that the United States does not dare to escalate sanctions against China due to the Russia issue will also undermine the deterrent power of U.S. economic sanctions against other countries.

3. Many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have expressed unfavorable positions towards the United States in the diplomatic struggle. This is evident and needs no further elaboration.

4. European allies suffered significant losses in this crisis.

Some people believe that the United States can take advantage of the situation to benefit economically from Europe, but I believe that this is a matter of secondary importance. Can the United States make some money? Of course, it is possible, but can making that money fundamentally resolve the economic problems of the United States? If it can, perhaps it would be worth it, but very few people seriously believe that the United States can fundamentally change its economic situation by reaping a few benefits from Europe during this crisis. At least until Russian troops enter Germany, it would be impossible for the United States to achieve the kind of harvesting seen during World War II even if it could take away some of Europe's resources. From a long-term perspective, the weakening of Europe is advantageous to China and the entire Western world's competition. Moreover, if Europe becomes desperate, would they consider introducing China's economic influence as a means of self-recovery?

There are always some people inexplicably worried that Europe's sense of security will be stimulated after the Russo-Ukrainian War, leading to a more resolute stance against China, standing firmly with the United States. But you can't just consider Europeans' dissatisfaction with China; you also have to consider their diminished capacity to counter China due to the Russo-Ukrainian War. From the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War until now, it seems that Europe has been quite restrained in its dealings with China. If there were going to be strong reactions, wouldn't they have happened earlier? Doesn't this indicate that Europe, faced with a hostile international environment, no longer has the energy to substantially confront China?

Furthermore, the triangular relationship between China, the United States, and Russia is further strengthened, which is also evident. Those who claim that the United States benefits based on analyzing Russia's losses should not forget that Russia is not the main competitor of the United States. The greater the losses suffered by Russia, the more likely it is for them to lean towards China. Is this what the United States hopes for? Or does the United States truly believe that Russia will suffer such significant losses that even if they firmly align with China, China won't gain substantial benefits? I suggest you read my work "Russia's Resilience."

In conclusion, I believe that the United States incurred such significant losses in the Russo-Ukrainian War that it is difficult to compensate for them with any alleged gains. It's to the extent that I'm too lazy to even analyze the gains for the United States.

It's clear to everyone that manufacturing hasn't returned to the United States. But here's the question: Does the United States need manufacturing to come back? I don't think so, because the U.S. economy can follow the path of the UK and Russia.

What does it mean to follow the path of the UK and Russia? The UK isn't known for its manufacturing industry; its economic strengths lie in finance, high-end services, higher education, and popular culture. Russia is also not known for its manufacturing industry (at least not for civilian manufacturing); its economic strengths lie in natural resources, agriculture, and military industry. Additionally, both the UK and Russia excel at leveraging their intelligence agencies for their own gains. While the UK and Russia have some areas of technological advancement (such as Russia's aerospace industry), they are no longer global leaders in high technology overall.

On the other hand, if the UK or Russia were to heavily develop their manufacturing industries, they would be on the wrong path. Why? Even if they make efforts, how can they compete with China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Isn't competition just about incurring more losses the more you invest? If they don't compete and just focus on themselves, their systems would be too small, and their long-term prospects would be bleak. Haven't we learned enough from the lessons of the Soviet Union?

After the Cold War, a globalized system emerged with the United States at its core (before China's rise in strength). The UK did well during this period, while Russia suffered a bit due to hasty transition and strong U.S. suppression. However, even after that, Russia's national strength has risen significantly from rock bottom, and it didn't rely on manufacturing. If, starting from the 1990s, the United States not only didn't suppress Russia but actively supported its stable economic transformation using its own capital and market, if the United States immediately used its powerful strength to help Russia withstand economic crises, if the United States demanded Europe, Japan, and South Korea to firmly cooperate with Russia's economic transformation and development, if the United States invited Russia to jointly oversee the Middle East and allowed Russia to be its deputy and paid enforcer, then it's very likely that Russia would also fare well, isn't it?

Even so, Russia's strength would definitely not reach the level of the United States, right? Just in terms of population and economy, they can't compare. Similarly, after World War II, the United States could support the two nuclear countries, the UK and France, but they couldn't challenge the United States.

If the United States were to do that with Russia, it would simply mean that it couldn't be as dominant as it was in the 1990s and the early 21st century. But in the long run, wouldn't it be more advantageous? At the very least, it would increase the possibility of suppressing China. This is not only because it would divide Russia, but also because it wouldn't waste time on suppressing Russia and the Middle East, giving China a strategic opportunity. There are also many other benefits, such as not needing to personally engage in the Middle East and just supporting Russia as a deputy. Once they are in power, the distribution of economic benefits would be sufficient, and it would also provide long-term employment for Russia's "millions of military and intelligence personnel" to prevent them from causing trouble for the United States...

Alright, let's do the math and summarize. The UK and Russia combined have a population of 200 million, while the United States has over 300 million. If both the UK and Russia were to invest in the United States and the United States actively accepted them, as mentioned above, both countries would thrive after the Cold War, and achieving this prosperity doesn't require efforts to promote manufacturing! At the same time, the United States would still be the superpower, and its position as the superpower would likely be more stable and long-lasting, making it easier to maintain. The happiness of the American people would also be higher.

Now, let's do another calculation. The United States has over 300 million people, while China has 1.4 billion, which is a much greater difference compared to the combined population of the UK and Russia. If the United States were to invest in China and China actively accepted, wouldn't the United States be able to comfortably pursue a path similar to that of the UK and Russia? All the things that the UK and Russia excel at, such as finance, high-end services, higher education, popular culture, natural resources, agriculture, military industry, and aerospace, aren't they all areas in which the United States already excels? Does the United States still need to heavily invest in civilian manufacturing? Why continue striving to be the global leader in high technology? Wouldn't it be better to leave those conundrums to others to ponder?

In the hypothetical scenario of the United States actively accepting China after the Cold War, let's consider the following alternative history. Instead of the UK and Russia, we replace them with the United States, China replaces the United States, East Asia replaces the Middle East, and India replaces China. Let's think about it carefully. Would it work? Would the United States be able to enjoy a stable and prosperous life, just like the fictional parallel of the UK and Russia? Would it make the American people believe they are among the top powers in the world for the long term? And would it solve the various issues in East Asia for China? Would China's position as the dominant power be secure and relaxed? Would the long-term threat from India to China diminish significantly? Would China be motivated to accept the alliance?

Of course, there is a significant difference between the two scenarios. After the Cold War, it was the UK and Russia seeking to align with the United States, but the United States didn't accept Russia's alliance. In the near future, it is China accepting the alliance with the United States, but the United States refuses to form the alliance.

In both cases, the United States managed to mess up two great opportunities. It harmed itself twice.

Lawyers and activists complain that the Israeli war on Hamas is not “proportional” to the terrorism that Hamas inflicted Oct 7th. That misses the point entirely. Remember the Powell Doctrine? Instead of slowly escalating a war by dribs and drabs, go in with overwhelming force and defeat the enemy. That is smart strategy.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, harbored Hamas, turned a blind eye when Hamas built tunnels under their homes, and said nothing when these rapists and murderers brought hostages back to Gaza. Now they whine that the Israeli response is “disproportionate.” Boo hoo. If you choose war with a superior military power, you are choosing to suffer. You are choosing for your kids to suffer. You don’t get to dictate how those whose relatives you raped, murdered and kidnapped respond to your crimes. Expect overwhelming force, as that’s what you deserve.

The numbers don't lie. Prior to the June 2022 Dobbs ruling Republicans were actually doing quite well. In 2021 and heading into 2022 it looked like your typical opposition party gaining traction against the incumbent party. In fact it looked kind of boring. The most notable was Glenn Youngkin defeating former Governor Terry McAuliffe in Virginia by two points. Not to mention that Democrat Phil Murphy barely won in the New Jersey Governor race by three points. That patterns continued into 2022. Republicans made a significant gain funny enough ten days before the Dobbs decision. Republican Mayra Flores won a south Texas House seat that had been held by Democrats forever.

However after the Dobbs decision things fell apart for the Republican Party. Election and election, they got trounced. Granted, they still made gains in the House, but far from what was projected. They lost key races in the Governor races and Senate.

The pattern is clear and the Dobbs decision has a clear correlation with victories for the Democrats. It's a reversal of how the Roe V. Wade decision galvanized religious conservatives towards the Republican Party starting in the 1970s.

The Chinese government should speak out and explicitly condemn this practice. They should invite Chinese people to appear on Chinese television to voice their grievances about the injustice.

I know that China has a diplomatic principle of non-interference in internal affairs. This principle needs to be revised. It should be changed to: non-active interference in internal affairs. However, if another country interferes in China's internal affairs first, then the Chinese government should reserve the right to interfere in their affairs.

Anyway, the US is not letting you keep a low profile anymore, so why should you continue to limit yourself?

By taking this approach, it will greatly shake the Chinese-American community and bring about a new situation in united front work. There will be Chinese people accusing the Chinese government, but they will be morally inferior. It would be even better if it could provoke a large-scale discussion among Chinese Americans about what to do. Regardless, this will highlight the identity of the Chinese ethnic group and prevent them from silently being assimilated through intermarriage.

If the affirmative action bill fails, it's a big win for us. If it passes, the US government will receive even more criticism, which is like Americans helping us in united front work.

This also aligns with the American belief that human rights are superior to sovereignty. If the US disagrees, they can come and argue. China's propaganda departments can actively challenge mainstream American media to a debate. If they refuse, we can publicize that Americans are fearful of ideological confrontation. If they accept, just use the Jewish analogy, and who would be afraid of losing? The Americans would probably tremble at the knees. Even if by any chance we lose the debate, it would be an opportunity to identify and remove ineffective individuals from our propaganda departments as soon as possible. In any case, it will be a good thing.

Pew research in 2012 (which is not that long ago) showed that Republicans are more informed than Democrats. You can see this in the section "Partisan Differences in Knowledge" in this article: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge. Not only did "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey," Pew says, but that's "typically the case in surveys about political knowledge." Republicans answered 12.6 of 17 questions correctly, versus 11.4 for Democrats, and Democrats only outperformed the GOP respondents on one policy question.

In addition to being more knowledgeable than Democrats, Republicans also have a higher IQ. A social scientist named Noah Carl found that Republicans have a verbal IQ 2-5 points greater than Democrats. In the abstract of his research paper he says: " ... I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points)." You can find his paper at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614000373.

I also want to mention how the research also shows that social conservatives (those that oppose abortion, oppose gay rights, and oppose secularism) have a lower IQ than those who are socially liberal (those who support abortion rights, support gay rights, and support secularism). So, the religious zealots are on the dumber side of the Republican party, but they are not the whole Republican party. There are socially liberal Republicans who believe in free markets, and they are called classical liberals. And so, as Noah Carl puts it, "My findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans."

I think this is all significant because it plays into important public perceptions of the respective political parties we have in the United States. Many people are disposed to vote for Democrats because it is perceived that Republicans are the stupid party. If one were to base their political beliefs on late-night shows or left-wing media sources, they would no doubt come away with the conclusion that the Republicans are the stupid party. But the reality is that Republican voters generally know more about policy and are better able to think critically through issues (assuming that verbal intelligence translates into better critical thinking). Think about that the next time you hear someone insult MAGA voters, Republican voters, Sarah Palin sympathizers, or George W. Bush sympathizers.

It is said that there are a large number of undocumented immigrants from a certain country going to the United States. When Americans discovered this, they became worried that there might be spies from that country among them. Some netizens from that country mocked American netizens for having too many conspiracy theories. However, I can't help but think that this issue might not be so simple.

If there are spies among them, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Of course, their numbers would definitely not be too large.

Even if there are no spies, I suggest that some spies should be sent along these routes. Let's not talk about anything else, the United States has such a big loophole in national security. If you don't send someone to explore and investigate, doesn't that mean you haven't done your job properly? Sending spies doesn't mean engaging in destructive activities; it completely contradicts the current policies of that country. But you can't possibly lack the desire to understand the vulnerabilities when you know there is one, right?

Send a few people to go in and come out, it could even serve as an assessment method for certain special departments' training programs. Once they enter the United States, they can assess how close they can get to certain targets. Once they have gathered enough intelligence, they can return. Additionally, even if that country doesn't send spies, other countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela probably will. From the perspective of understanding the infiltration of these countries into the United States, it would be necessary for that country to send some spies as well. It's best to have some knowledge about the situation with allies too.

Furthermore, there is also a possibility of people crossing the borders of that country, although not as severe as in the United States. It would be helpful to first understand the loopholes in the U.S. border in order to construct a defense line for that country's borders.

We're trying to be like the middle of the US and Europe at the same time and it ain't going well. This is a pile of boarder towns, farms in fuck all nowhere and the flat barren gravel roads that is Saskatchewan, we aren't a highly developed nationwide industry leader or a bunch of high density cities and we need to start acting like it.

Carbon tax will never work even if it was actually done right because there's a shitload of people that live in fuck all nowhere that need 4x4 trucks to actually get anywhere without totalling thier shit on every foot deep pothole, you can't try structuring our politics like the US since we have several different minorities and a majority living in the same areas.

Apparently we aren't gonna actually make minimum wage higher or improve shithole food service working conditions, we're just gonna bring in a shitload of people when our economy has already been in the shitter since like 2018 and housing prices where already high as fuck.

We're just gonna let like 7 different corporations run 95% of the markets in this country while they're also being dickheads about it, it would be one thing if they just behaved normally but nope gotta be greedy dickheads.

We've removed more freight train infrastructure than we put back in so our roads get absolutely destroyed by the insane amount of semi trucks in and out all day, then (at least here in nova Scotia) the roads get patched with ½" of cat shit and loose gravel so it just becomes worse in about 4 weeks so it's a never ending cycle of the roads being worse than the abandoned logging roads in fuckin Hants County.

Also we need to ban companies (especially foreign ones) from buying residential HOUSING as an investment, commercial property they know Damm well they're never gonna develop too.

Trudeau is absolutely delusional but so are the people that think polivere is gonna do jack shit other than hopefully at least get rid of the carbon tax fully and maybe try to fix shit.

The feds are never here to help anyone but themselves, all they do is set the same basic laws everywhere else has, tell each provincial government roughly what to do and then start the giant shitshows like the ones stated above.

The actual people of Canada need to LEGITIMATELY organize something about this bullshit, NOT like that trucker convoy shit that just turned into a shitshow after day 2. Be like Chace Barber of Edison motors, actually look into your laws and call out your local governments on the bullshit they're doing and use actual common sense, think of it like industrial construction, do some janky shit but do the janky shit the right way at least.

Also sidenote, the whole Abortion and LGBTQ+ culture war is the STUPIDEST shit I've ever seen, just let people exist and tell others not to be dickheads ffs, im deadass convinced that whole thing is a manufacturered diversion from the actual problems and specifically designed to create a division of people so nobody can ever get any actual shit done.

Donald Trump for his many faults tends to have good political instincts on what is popular with his base. This is the first time in my memory aside from the Covid vaccine where he's divided his base. He made a big boo boo in politics. Acknowledging your greatest weakness.

Donald Trump had been smart beforehand with the abortion issue and just not talking about it. He left his stance to be interpreted by those around him. Now he's placed a firm position. Leave it up to the states and no national abortion ban. Oh boy. Now this divides the base between the pragmatists that want to win elections and the pro-life extremists.

Good job Donald!

None of these findings should come as any surprise. We all know people like this. Because they are misfits, they have to somehow rationalize their place in the underclass of society and the way to do this is by blaming everyone, and everything, on someone else.
And this is what gives MAGA it's strength.
Maga tells them it's not their fault they didn't get an education, it's not their fault they're stuck in dead end jobs, it's not their fault the room gets silent when they walk in, no, it's the immigrants, the Muslims, the Jews and the Liberals who are responsible for their misery.
It's the 'other', always the 'other', look outward, never inward, and your psyche will be salved, MAGA assures them.
Read this -- italics mine.
© Provided by talker
By Stephen Beech via SWNS
People who believe in conspiracy theories tend to be insecure and paranoid, suggests a new study.
Conspiracy theorists are also likely to be emotionally volatile and impulsive, according to the findings.
But they're not all mentally unstable, say psychologists.
They found that people can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations. These include relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment. The results of the study, published online in the journal Psychological Bulletin, paint a "nuanced" picture of what drives conspiracy theorists, according to lead author Shauna Bowes.
“Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks – a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes, a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Emory University. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.” She said previous research on what drives conspiracy theorists had mainly looked separately at personality and motivation. The new study aimed to examine those factors together to arrive at a more unified account of why people believe in conspiracy theories.
The research team analyzed data from 170 studies involving more than 158,000 participants, mainly in the UK, USA and Poland. They focused on studies that measured participants’ motivations or personality traits associated with conspiratorial thinking. The team found that, overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others. Bowes said that even though many conspiracy theories seem to provide clarity or a supposed secret truth about confusing events, a need for closure or a sense of control were not the strongest motivators to endorse conspiracy theories. Instead, the research team found some evidence that people were more likely to believe specific conspiracy theories when they were motivated by social relationships.
For instance, participants who perceived social threats were more likely to believe in events-based conspiracy theories, such as the theory that the U.S. government planned the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, rather than an abstract theory that, in general, governments plan to harm their citizens to retain power. Bowes said: “These results largely map onto a recent theoretical framework advancing that social identity motives may give rise to being drawn to the content of a conspiracy theory, whereas people who are motivated by a desire to feel unique are more likely to believe in general conspiracy theories about how the world works." The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits - such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories.
Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric. The 'Big Five' personality traits - extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism - had a much weaker relationship with conspiratorial thinking, although the researchers said that does not mean that general personality traits are irrelevant to a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. Bowes added: "Future research should be conducted with an awareness that conspiratorial thinking is complicated, and that there are important and diverse variables that should be explored in the relations among conspiratorial thinking, motivation and personality to understand the overall psychology behind conspiratorial ideas."
ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/research-reveals-what-kind-of-people-fall-for-conspiracy-theories/ar-AA1d3nFH?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=f34fdb5d5c444fc898a33144de8360e4&ei=33

“Ok I’ve seen the videos. I get it. People are dying, kids are dying, our government is supporting the genocide against them and my taxes are funding this. What do you want me to do about it? All you’re doing is making me feel bad everyday, I get it, it’s sad, but what do you want me to do. Stop shoving this in my face it’s not helping anyone.”

Ok so you think there’s nothing you can do. I’ll assume this means you want to do something. Before trying to do anything, Understand the issue. Yes people are dying and starving and your taxes are funding this, but I want you to dig deeper. Understand the roots of this, it isn’t just because Hamas attacked on October 7th and Israel is just soooo angry they can’t contain their anger and are shooting and killing any and everyone. Understand that Israel is an ethnostate first, that Jewish people around the world can immigrate their on a “birthright” trip while families who lived there just 75 years ago aren’t allowed back to their homes. Understand that Palestinians aren’t allowed to convert to Judaism and then take their birthright trip but anyone else can. Understand the meaning of apartheid and the fact that Israel is one.

(Inserting this after writing: please don’t use israel to be antisemitic, don’t conflate Zionism with Judaism, if you understand what I’m saying surely you can understand this simply distinction)

Now once you understand all this, hopefully you want to do something even more than you did before you knew this. I have good news and bad news. You can do something. Unfortunately what you can do won’t magically save these families, we aren’t powerful enough alone for that. But here’s what you can do. You already did step 1, understand the issue and what you’re up against: Zionism, ethnic supremacy, colonialism and of course genocide.

The next thing you can do is make others aware of this like you are now. Do you really think a state like Israel could exist if everyone was aware of even a fraction of its evils? Not just evil people acting out, but the evils built into its very fabric? No. So teach others as best as you can. Obviously I didn’t even begin to cover everything about it in the previous paragraph, I just shot out a few things I could think of at the time, but the more you learn the more you realize it’s not just a one off incident, its a pattern spread through its fabric and you need to uncover it all.

Secondly, there’s a genocide happening. You need to amplify the voices of the victims. Never before has there been a genocide where you can literally FaceTime the people who are being exterminated, watch their tik toks and instagram reels begging for help and awareness. Amplify their voices, to further the awareness of everyone. Thirdly, boycott. Boycotting literally just means to not spend money at places that support the thing you are fighting. In this case, the main target is Zionism. Money talks, money makes the world spin and money is the only thing they’ll listen to. You can’t boycott EVERYTHING but this is about doing what you can and leading by example.

Take McDonalds for instance. McDonalds in Israel is currently still feeding IDF soldiers free food as they starve the population of Gaza. McDonalds itself has come out to say “we are the victims of misinformation and we aren’t part of this war etc etc” but when you realize the IDF are the equivalent if not worse than the Nazis, there’s no such thing as neutral. Obviously McDonalds says that to remain neutral, to keep their customers and money coming in from Zionists, anti-zionists, and the uninformed all alike. But if one of your branches if feeding Nazi’s during the holocaust and you find yourself unable to cut them off and say “We do not support genocide under any circumstances and are deeply ashamed at the actions of our israeli counterparts”, you are protecting them and deserve the boycott. Now that’s the justification/reasoning why McDonald’s has become a large boycott target, but there’s also reasons for Starbucks and plenty of other companies. Of course targetted boycotts are ideal and have the most impact, like boycotting everything on the BDS list, but ideally, if you want to stop putting as much of your money as possible in the pockets of these people, you’ll widen your net from just BDS to any company you see being shady like McDonalds, trying to play both sides with the fucking NAZIS.

Now boycotting is the strongest tool we have, the more people we make aware, truly aware, the more people will boycott and the more money these companies will lose. The reason McDonalds is staying neutral and won’t call out their Nazi branch is to protect their bottom line, their profits. So we simply have to make it unprofitable to protect Nazi’s committing a holocaust. It’s a shame it was profitable in the first place but once we see that, we should do everything we can to make it unprofitable. I haven’t seen a boycott lead so far as to make a company turn around and speak out, but that’s the direction we should be fighting towards, even if we haven’t seen it before.

I understand these actions can seem minute and not that helpful. “My one instagram story won’t reach anyone, even if it does they won’t care”, “my withholding of my singular flow of cash into McDonald’s won’t change anything, I’m just one person”, etc. But if everyone thinks this way, it is simply a self fulfilling prophecy. A defeatist and cynical attitude that it what made it profitable in the first place to protect and even support such evils like Israel. The good news is, if we can change our attitudes, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that “yes, my one purchase does make a difference”, the more people we make aware, truly aware, the more will boycott. But boycotting only is convincing if we can get people over this defeatist self fulfilling prophecy that it’s useless. It isn’t useless, as a matter of fact its the most powerful thing we have, our money. The only language these evil fucks understand is money.

So once you’re done reading this, please boycott. You can create your own criteria and how to find a target but you can start with BDS as a base level of targets at least. Of course this has all been about the genocide in Gaza and boycotting Zionism but this same logic should apply to any evil. I know people will obviously disagree that Zionism is evil and Israel is evil but I’m not writing to convince you of that, this is about the power of collective action and my frustration with defeatism.

You know the saying “learn history so it does not repeat itself”, how do we not see it happening again? The holocaust, widely regarded as one of the worst genocides to date, happened just about 80 years ago. Since then, we are seeming to get closer and closer to another event which is very similar but for trans people. In the 1900s after WWI, German decided to blame all of their issues in a very small percentage of the country, give or take 1-2%. As such, it gave them a small group to rally behind a truly hate, similar to blaming a lot of the nations problems on trans people. They are ruining sports, something that is large in the US, they are going to make male and female spaces unsafe! (Even though this is essentially impossible to prove) and the list goes on and on. Now, some conservatives are planning on making the government more Republican so they have more power by appointing new officials for the 2025 plan. Actively trying to make the country an unsafe area for any and all trans people, in certain states, punishable by being labeled a sex offender by going into the restroom that would put them in the least harms way. Recently, a kid, Nex Benedict died, and while technically speaking, his death ‘was not a result of his injuries but likely a suicide’, when we were not sure that was the case, the OK senator said “I represent a constituency that doesn't want that filth in Oklahoma”. It is horrifying to see how officials are saying that a child death doesn’t matter as much just because they were trans. We are approaching another genoside, possibly a war between some parts of our countries due to the laws being made. How are people letting this happen again? What is there reasoning?

Folks, when in a discussion someone makes a point you can't refute and you reply, "Yeah, what about the time...?" it means you've conceded the point.
By not responding directly to your adversary's contention and look only to change the topic, means you've lost the argument. Face it, if you had a valid argument you would have presented it then. By not doing so clearly demonstrates you have no defense and can do nothing but stumble and bumble in a feeble attempt to save face.
Now, that would be okay. No one likes to be proven wrong about anything. But as they say, "When you're in a hole, stop digging". You see, it's then that people begin to shake their heads at your intransigence. Not everyone is right about everything and there are times when we can all benefit from a teaching moment; there is no shame in being wrong about something. The problem arises when you simply refuse to accept recognized facts; when you turn a blind eye to reality and continue to wriggle like the worm at the end of a hook in steadfast denial of absolute truths.
And why? Why continue on a dead-end course? If you are wrong about something and know it, you are not going to change the facts that mitigate against you by continuing to beat the dead horse of your inaccuracies and misconceptions. You are only showing yourself to be a stubborn fool and you encourage people to think less of you.
Hey, if you're wrong, you're wrong -- admit it. Be thankful you learned something that will allow you to hold your head high and show yourself to be a worthy member of a society.
"Hey, I was wrong and I'm man enough to admit it."

A little bit about me, I grew up in the south as a white, middle class individual and had a pretty typical childhood. I grew up experiencing christian values, southern culture, suburban/rural communities, and grew up in a bipartisan household(Democratic Mom and Republican Dad). I have always thought I identify with conservative ideology but with a progressive direction. As I have gotten more into politics, I feel as if I don't really have a voice or champion in the political arena. I typically don't have a party affiliation because I feel like I could be in either party. I feel like I can see both sides of the issue and usually lean towards the progressive long term viewpoint but approach the problem/policy as a conservative. I feel like there are voters on the spectrum near me but no one is trying to get us to vote for them. Is there any issue with this political viewpoint, do people feel the same, and how do people like me use my voice?
Im open to all comments and am learning to articulate my ideas better in print.

I was looking at the 13 Keys to the White House. Allan Lichtman's study of presidential elections and the comparisons between 2004 and 2024 are fascinating. Three factors really stand out and then I'll explain the likely result.

1. The governing party was united and the economy was relatively stable. George W. Bush and Joe Biden have that advantage which is huge for re-election.
2. Both governing parties struggled in foreign policy. Bush with the Iraq War and Biden with Gaza. This dissatisfaction stopped and will likely stop Biden from having a landslide victory.
3. In both cases the nation was divided. Foreign policy alone has this habit of dividing people, yet it doesn't hit their core pocket book. This tends to lead to a narrower victory for the governing party, but a victory nonetheless.

Overall. As of now my prediction is a narrow victory for Biden much like Bush had in 2004. A divided nation, but not a change election.