“Under no circumstances shall it be allowed for shares or securities of any company or institution to ever be lent nor payment be accepted for routing securities or share orders off traditional securities and share exchanges nor revealing order information.” (page 57)

This bans payment for order flow and short selling in the stock market (both concepts I explain in further detail in my book)!

“There shall be no discrimination on the taxation rate and economic opportunities on the basis of incorporation, race, ethnicity, sex, religion, culture, language, income, employment, wealth, caste, family, medical issues, physical characteristics, or social status.”

“Taxes shall be levied so that no more than 20% is paid on the following (This applies only for domestic taxation (Citizens, Legal Residents, Legal Immigrants, and Organizations Incorporated or formed in the United States or its territories)):

(1)The profit or the surplus of the income at the end of the year after expenses(2) net equity/net worth (with the exception of any property used personally for the purposes of commuting or residence) (3) natural resources from mineral exploration on land (4) the precious stones/ metals/ mineral obtained from sea(5) treasures discovered from any land (6) the land which is given by local/state/federal government for cultivation (7) the spoils of war (not acquired by government).

Any spoil of war acquired by the government is subject to a tax (obligation to its jurisdiction) of 20% of its value paid back to the people within its jurisdiction.

Any private property taken for public use shall have an additional 20% of its value from just compensation paid back by the government as a tax to the previous owner.

No additional taxes shall be levied except by the federal government with the two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and all states and territorial governments ratifying.

These additional taxes shall by their very nature be temporary and they will have a stipulated period of time when they expire or otherwise shall be null and void and therefore unenforceable.

Additionally, henceforth (from the moment of adoption of this amendment) instead of charging interest, equity participation and profit-and-loss sharing shall be done in its stead and such transactions of charging interest done hereafter are null and void, payments decreed to be returned, and punishable by law.” (Pages 63-66)

This makes it so people (Citizens, Legal Residents, and Legal Immigrants) just like domestic businesses are taxed on money left over after expenses are paid and at a lower tax rate and the federal government has unlimited power to tax foreigners such as foreign business and imports.

www.restorefamiliesusa.com and r/PoliticsandMediaBets

I'm gonna put this at the start even though it's my main point. We are in a deep mental block so, please I'm begging you, just support something. Statically even if you're invested in politics you don't have any vision for the future. I know the comments are gonna be either crickets or a bunch of low energy users saying "why", "we're perfect, life is great now", "be grateful for what we have", "it's because of the other side", "we can't because..". But anyways comment about a mega project you support instead please.

We're still near the start of it, added to the fact this has been starting since the 70's, and you can see how long this era is gonna last. Stuff has been crumbling for a while, its just now finally breaking through to the mainstream where it effects everyone. It's very unfortunate to be born now, like how it was unfortunate to live through the stagnation era till the end of the soviet union. But I don't think America's future is gonna be like how russia is now, as we wane we're gonna be in a similar position as UK.

Speaking of UK they have a meme over there that's very relevant for what's going on here in America. "The Cheems Mindset", basically nobody wants anything to pass because they can't be burdened to progress. The population is sore from all the fighting they did, only to get so little, only for it to be taken away. People lost energy. There's nations when signs of apathy started centuries ago and they're still apathetic today, this is not an easy fix especially for old countries.

The easiest solution to this are mega projects. War is probably the easiest mega project to shake out of the funk but ethics aside it's a gamble and costly just for destruction. Even if we win and only see the loot but dont see the destruction, the world as a whole is at a loss and the future generation has to carry that. Like groups of people are mad at us right now for decisions from the previous generations that i don't defend. Add more to that and we're just screwing ourselves over. That being said the best economy we ever had was the war time economy for ww2. I don't know why we got out of it, it worked miraculously well. The government seized and own factories to make supplies for the war effort, the top marginal income tax rate was 92% (recovered from when taxes was only at 25% that caused the Great Depression), we entered the age of the Great Compression, it was literally only good times (for white people obviously but even social issues made a lot of progress).

We could have that war time economy without the war time and experience the same benefits. The space race was close to it but we gave up on that. Why? I don't know. China is doing mega projects all the time: amazing public transit system that we used to say it'll never work and now does, the Silk Road that we're cautious about but not jealous for some reason like we should be, or the ghost cities for future development that we're STILL looking down on just like the other big public spending projects that turned out to be successes. We haven't learned our lesson. And there's more (like deals with Africa among other things). America needs to start up mega projects again, there's sparks of us slightly looking at space, why?, because China is slightly looking at space but that's not enough. We really are going to shrink our influence like the UK due to having that nasty old country smell, and we're aging a lot faster than the old monarchs did to get there.

Here are some ideas to bring us into back into that wartime economy: abolishing slavery from the world, go fully green energy (yea rich people say climate change is fake, I don't care, green energy products sells world wide cause it's just better. wanna be late AGAIN like the universal healthcare problem we're still fighting about? I didn't think so), build tons of homes/bring back the war on poverty again, completely abolish our copyright system (might not sound like much but getting rid of this will do wonders for our economy and it will shake us up to our core in a good way), create multiple experimental economic zones to try out radically different economic systems (as usual look at China, American's system is just as out of date), etc. Or you come up with one on your own or support an existing project.

Just please support something to help get us out and encourage others. It's so easy to just dream about something we can have in the future.

Since the beginning of his second term in 2025, President Donald Trump has engaged in a series of actions that constitute profound violations of his constitutional oath and abuses of power, making a compelling and irrefutable case for impeachment. These actions not only challenge the foundational principles of American democracy but also present clear and present dangers to the integrity of the government and the rule of law.

One of the most egregious offenses is Trump’s consistent undermining of the independence of key governmental oversight bodies, particularly through his dismissal of federal inspectors general and top law enforcement officials. The Constitution grants Congress the power to conduct oversight, a power that is vital to the system of checks and balances. By removing these officials, Trump has not only prevented vital investigations into corruption and abuse of power but has also dismantled a central mechanism of accountability. His interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI - specifically his attempts to place loyalists in positions of power and purge those involved in crucial investigations - amounts to a direct violation of the separation of powers, further undermining the rule of law. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the law, not manipulating it for personal or political gain. His actions have not only threatened the impartiality of the judicial system but have eroded public trust in the very institutions that are meant to safeguard democracy.

The impeachment case becomes even more undeniable when considering Trump’s pardon of individuals involved in the January 6th insurrection. His pardons were not granted based on a belief in justice or rehabilitation but on political loyalty, effectively rewarding those who sought to overthrow the Constitution and violently disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. The pardon power is not an unbridled privilege - it is intended to be used for the purposes of justice, not to protect those who have engaged in violent sedition against the nation. Trump’s actions directly contradict the principles of justice and equality under the law. His decision to pardon those involved in the insurrection emboldened violent extremism, setting a dangerous precedent where political violence is rewarded rather than punished. The act of pardoning insurrectionists is, in itself, an abuse of power that not only disrespects the Constitution but also undermines the very fabric of American democracy.

Furthermore, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement exemplifies his disregard for both the Constitution and the international obligations of the United States. While the president has broad powers in conducting foreign policy, the Constitution grants the Senate the authority to ratify treaties. The Paris Agreement, a global accord aimed at combating climate change, was an international treaty that Trump unilaterally abandoned, circumventing the Constitution’s requirements. This decision was not just politically controversial; it was an outright violation of the Constitution’s provision regarding treaties and international agreements. Trump’s unilateral withdrawal disregarded both the legislative branch’s role and the nation’s obligations under international law, eroding America’s credibility as a global leader and undermining critical efforts to address climate change, an existential threat to the planet and future generations.

Additionally, Trump’s use of tariffs as a political weapon further demonstrates his abuse of power. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, not the president. Trump’s imposition of tariffs, particularly as a means to punish countries for personal and political grievances, violated the Constitution by usurping the legislative branch’s authority to regulate trade. Rather than pursuing the national interest, Trump weaponized tariffs to serve his personal political agenda, targeting nations based on retribution rather than sound policy. This abuse of executive power, prioritizing personal vendettas over the nation’s well-being, is a clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers and a blatant disregard for Congress’s role in trade policy.

The president’s political purges within federal agencies, particularly within the Department of Justice, FBI, and U.S. Postal Service, further illustrate his intention to dismantle institutions that serve as checks on his power. By replacing qualified and experienced officials with political loyalists, Trump has politicized federal agencies, undermining their impartiality and independence. This political interference weakens the ability of these agencies to carry out their duties objectively and threatens the integrity of the civil service. When government agencies are staffed with individuals based on political loyalty rather than merit, it opens the door for future abuses of power, creating a dangerous precedent for future presidents. The president’s efforts to undermine the independence of the justice system and law enforcement agencies are not only an attack on the rule of law but also on the fundamental checks and balances that protect against authoritarianism.

Moreover, Trump’s repeated disregard for the judicial branch further deepens the case for impeachment. His attacks on federal judges, including calling into question their legitimacy when rulings did not go in his favor, are direct assaults on the judiciary’s independence. The Constitution requires that judges remain free from political pressure in order to serve the people impartially. Trump’s actions have undermined the judiciary’s ability to act as a neutral arbiter of the law, further eroding the separation of powers. His continued attempts to interfere with judicial independence, whether through public pressure or executive interference, threaten the very foundations of American democracy.

Taken as a whole, Trump’s actions represent a clear and undeniable violation of his oath of office, demonstrating a pattern of conduct that seeks to consolidate power in the executive branch while undermining the essential functions of the legislative, judicial, and oversight bodies. These actions cannot be dismissed as mere political disagreements or misjudgments - they are calculated, intentional efforts to subvert the rule of law, weaken democratic institutions, and evade accountability. The Constitution provides for impeachment as a remedy for abuses of power, and President Trump’s actions have created an undeniable case for this process. If Congress does not act, it would not only fail in its duty to uphold the Constitution but also set a dangerous precedent that could irreparably damage the fabric of American democracy.

President Trump’s actions in 2025 represent a direct assault on the very principles that have sustained the republic for over two centuries. His repeated violations of the Constitution, particularly through his abuse of executive power and disregard for the rule of law, make impeachment not just a political necessity but a constitutional imperative. To allow such behavior to go unchecked would embolden future presidents to further undermine democratic institutions, concentrate power in the executive branch, and further erode the separation of powers. Impeachment is the only way to hold President Trump accountable, preserve the integrity of the nation, and protect the future of American democracy.

Addendum: The Constitutional Case for Impeachment - A Legal and Historical Imperative

This addendum strengthens my argument by grounding it in constitutional law, Supreme Court precedent, and historical context, demonstrating beyond doubt that impeachment is not only justified but constitutionally mandated.

I. The Destruction of Oversight and the Separation of Powers

Article I of the Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, including the power to conduct oversight of the executive branch. This authority is not optional - it is fundamental to the checks and balances that prevent the president from ruling without accountability.

Trump’s systematic purge of inspectors general and law enforcement officials obstructs Congress’s constitutional mandate. His removal of oversight officials and his interference with the Department of Justice and FBI violate foundational Supreme Court precedent (McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)), which holds that Congress’s power to investigate is essential to governance. If a president can obstruct oversight without consequence, then the separation of powers ceases to function.

II. Abuse of the Pardon Power to Reward Insurrectionists

The pardon power, granted under Article II, Section 2, has never been unlimited. It was designed to serve the interests of justice, not to protect those who attack the republic itself. By pardoning the January 6th insurrectionists, Trump has used this power in a way that violates its constitutional purpose.

The Supreme Court has recognized limits on the pardon power when its use conflicts with broader constitutional principles (United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871)). The Framers did not intend for a president to use clemency as a mechanism to reward insurrection and encourage future political violence. When the pardon power is wielded to subvert democracy, it becomes an impeachable offense.

III. Violating the Treaty Clause and Unilaterally Abandoning International Agreements

The Treaty Clause (Article II, Section 2) requires Senate approval for international agreements of consequence. Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement disregards the constitutional role of the Senate and the requirements of international law.

While presidents have some discretion in foreign policy, their authority is not boundless. The Supreme Court has ruled that executive actions must comply with both constitutional and statutory obligations (Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)). Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which has been incorporated into U.S. regulatory law, is not simply a policy decision - it is an unconstitutional circumvention of legislative authority.

IV. Unconstitutional Seizure of Congress’s Power Over Trade

Article I, Section 8 explicitly grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Despite this, Trump has imposed tariffs and trade restrictions without congressional approval, using them as tools of political retribution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that executive power does not extend to actions that override legislative authority (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)). When a president unilaterally imposes economic measures for personal or political advantage, he usurps powers that the Constitution exclusively grants to Congress.

V. Corrupting Federal Agencies and Undermining the Impartiality of Government

A neutral and professional civil service is essential to democratic governance. The Supreme Court has ruled that political loyalty cannot be a prerequisite for public employment (Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)). Yet Trump has purged career officials from federal agencies and replaced them with political loyalists, eroding the ability of these institutions to function independently.

By turning the Justice Department, the FBI, and even the U.S. Postal Service into tools of his personal agenda, Trump has attacked the very foundation of nonpartisan governance. The integrity of the civil service is not a partisan issue - it is a constitutional necessity.

VI. Attacks on the Judiciary and the Rule of Law

The judiciary exists as an independent check on executive power, a principle enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. Trump’s public attacks on federal judges, his efforts to delegitimize rulings against him, and his attempts to install judges based on loyalty rather than qualification undermine the independence of the courts.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the necessity of judicial independence (Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995)). A president who seeks to intimidate and coerce judges is a president who disregards the very structure of constitutional government.

Conclusion: A Constitutional Duty to Impeach

Impeachment is not a political choice. It is the constitutional remedy for a president who subverts democracy, consolidates power, and ignores the rule of law. The Founders anticipated the dangers of executive overreach, and they provided impeachment as the only safeguard. If Congress does not act now, it will set a precedent that allows future presidents to dismantle democracy without consequence.

The time for debate is over. The Constitution demands action. The survival of the American republic depends on it.

TL;DR: Trump’s 2025 Actions Demand Impeachment

Trump’s second term has unleashed a direct assault on democracy - obstructing oversight, corrupting justice, pardoning insurrectionists, violating constitutional limits on power, and dismantling institutional checks. His actions threaten the rule of law and the very foundation of the Republic. Impeachment isn’t a choice - it’s a constitutional necessity.

Prove me wrong: The real Trump agenda isn’t about ‘freedom’ for you—it’s about securing absolute power for the billionaire class. It’s a future where government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires ensures that working people stay divided, wages stay stagnant, and corporate interests rule unchecked. This isn’t just politics; it’s a rigged system designed to keep you struggling while the ultra-wealthy consolidate control. Change my mind.

As soon as Donald Trump stepped in office, he signed tons of executive orders that would make the US more and more authoritarian. Of course this process would take time, but it is starting to feel like the US could be heading into a fascist regime.

Freedom House currently ranks the US an 83/100, which is free, but I would expect this rating to fall in the next few years, and likely in the annual Freedom of the World article that should be coming up soon. I wouldn’t be shocked if the US fell out of the Free category into the Partly Free category. This has happened to countries like Hungary who used to be free but was taken over by a right-wing fascist leader.

The dominant political party’s political platform is pretty much dead set on stripping LGBTQ rights and allowing discrimination to happen. Their entire platform has become “make Transgender people the number one enemy and eliminate them from public life.” This will force transgender people to live secretively in fear of social or legal repercussions. Transgender people already receive ridicule for existing, don’t take my word for it though, listen to what Michael Knowles, a prominent right-wing commentator said:

"If it is false, then for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely—the whole preposterous ideology, at every level."

Although we are not at that point yet, we are already seeing large corporations bow down to Trump, eliminating DEI and LGBTQ protections out of fear that they may receive punishment for implementing these.

So my point is the US is experiencing democratic backsliding very rapidly, and groups that have been historically discriminated might be losing some civil liberties and civil rights.

Understanding the Scale of a Billionaire’s Wealth

We throw around words like "millionaire" and "billionaire" as if they exist on the same spectrum, just with a few extra zeros. They don’t.

To understand how grotesquely wealthy Elon Musk is, consider this:

• As of February 3, 2025, his estimated net worth is $421.6 billion.
• That’s more than the entire net worth of multiple first-world countries—nations with advanced economies, stable governments, and millions of citizens.
• He is not just a rich guy—he exists in an entirely different financial universe.

To put this into perspective, let’s compare Musk’s personal fortune to ten developed countries, factoring in their total national wealth, size, population, and human development index (HDI)—a measure of health, education, and standard of living.

For reference, the United States' HDI is 0.927, ranking among the highest in the world.

10. Finland

• National Wealth: $320 billion
• Population: 5.5 million
• Land Area: 338,455 km²
• HDI: 0.940 (higher than the USA)

💰 Musk could buy Finland and still have over $100 billion left. Finland has universal healthcare, free higher education, and a strong social safety net. Meanwhile, one man hoards more wealth than the entire nation.

9. New Zealand

• National Wealth: $249 billion
• Population: 5 million
• Land Area: 268,838 km²
• HDI: 0.939

💰 Musk is nearly twice as rich as New Zealand. A country with a high standard of living, pristine nature, and a booming economy is still worth less than one billionaire.

8. Hungary

• National Wealth: $194 billion
• Population: 9.6 million
• Land Area: 93,028 km²
• HDI: 0.855

💰 Musk could buy Hungary twice over. This European nation, with nearly 10 million people, has a lower total wealth than a single individual.

7. Romania

• National Wealth: $187 billion
• Population: 19 million
• Land Area: 238,397 km²
• HDI: 0.830

💰 Musk’s net worth is more than double Romania’s. A nation of 19 million people, with centuries of history and culture, still has less wealth than one tech mogul.

6. Peru

• National Wealth: $186 billion
• Population: 33 million
• Land Area: 1,285,216 km²
• HDI: 0.762

💰 Musk has more wealth than the entire economy of Peru. That’s 33 million people struggling with economic instability, and their combined wealth is still less than Musk’s personal fortune.

5. Argentina

• National Wealth: $174 billion
• Population: 45 million
• Land Area: 2,780,400 km²
• HDI: 0.849

💰 One man has more money than 45 million Argentinians. Argentina is a resource-rich nation with a massive agricultural and industrial economy. Musk's personal fortune surpasses all of it.

4. Slovakia

• National Wealth: $170 billion
• Population: 5.4 million
• Land Area: 49,035 km²
• HDI: 0.860

💰 Musk’s wealth is more than double Slovakia’s. This EU nation, with a high standard of living, still has a lower total wealth than one billionaire.

3. Bulgaria

• National Wealth: $141 billion
• Population: 6.9 million
• Land Area: 110,879 km²
• HDI: 0.816

💰 If Musk gave every Bulgarian an equal share of his wealth, each would get over $60,000. That’s nearly twice Bulgaria’s average annual salary.

2. Croatia

• National Wealth: $130 billion
• Population: 4 million
• Land Area: 56,594 km²
• HDI: 0.860

💰 Musk could personally make every Croatian a multimillionaire. Instead, his wealth accumulates, untouched, while millions struggle worldwide.

1. Slovenia

• National Wealth: $114 billion
• Population: 2.1 million
• Land Area: 20,273 km²
• HDI: 0.918

💰 Slovenia—a highly developed, modern country—is worth less than 30% of Musk’s fortune.

Conclusion: Billionaires Are Not Like Us

These numbers aren’t just about money—they reveal how broken our economic system is.

• If Musk spent $1 million every single day, it would take him 1,155 years to run out of money.
• His personal fortune is greater than the total wealth of tens of millions of people combined.
• His wealth isn’t just about hard work—it’s about a system that allows one person to hoard what entire nations cannot.

We are told to aspire to be like billionaires, to idolize them, but the truth is:

No one should have this much money.

When one man is worth more than entire first-world nations, we need to stop celebrating billionaires and start asking:

🚨 How did we let this happen?
🚨 Why does one man have more wealth than 45 million Argentinians?
🚨 What would the world look like if that money was actually used to improve lives?

Elon Musk isn’t just a rich guy.
He’s an example of how extreme wealth inequality is warping our society.

It’s time to stop worshiping billionaires. They don’t just live in a different tax bracket—they live in a different reality.

“Assuming that being a Christian is inherently a part of being an American, doesn't that directly violate the idea of individual freedom? America was founded on the idea that no single religion should dictate national identity. If Christianity was a prerequisite for being “truly American,” then it would make non-Christians—Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, etc.—lesser citizens, which directly contradicts the second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence: “…That all men are created equal...” The whole point of American identity is that it isn’t tied to a singular faith but rather to shared values of freedom, democracy, and equal rights. The moment one religion was placed above all others in defining national identity, our country strayed from its fundamental ideals. In history, many of the original Founding Fathers were deeply wary of religious control over the government. For example, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, championed the separation of church and state precisely to prevent religious dogma from dictating national policy. They understood that a nation where one religion prevails above all others would inevitably marginalize those who don't conform, transgressing the core ideals of liberty and equality on which this country was founded.”

I find this current situation extremely alarming, and am hoping that people will come up with strike plans and use legal pathways to address the reach of Trump and Musk. It is worrying that they are disregarding the laws and practices of the democracy and instead dismantling the normal flow of government. If this were a coup, this would be how it started.

But I think we should do all we can, in real life and over social media. Another redditor mentioned that we should call Musk president as that seemed to really irk Trump. And I believe the situation is so crazy that that actually could work.

Trump showcases such a strong narcissistic streak that he actually might distance himself from Musk or at least place some limitations on him if he feels his ego is threatened.

Hence, I suggest we start using the hashtag #PresidentMusk whenever we post things relating to him. If all goes well, his fans would start using that as well.

The risk is that he might be boldened by it, but at the same time, he doesn't have the same legal backing as Trump. Without Trump, his overstepping would seem like a coup immediately.

I know this is incredibly silly, but knowing that we have a President with a huge narcissistic ego, this kind of strategy might actually have a huge impact - even if it is transparent effort to call out Musk's overstepping.

So, #PresidentMusk for the win.

Any other ideas or thoughts?

Ps. If you know other channels where to post it, let me know.

Is Trump creating a war economy?

Is the enactment of the s.5 compareable to the JEW-LAWS?

1. Economic Mobilization and Resource Allocation

Increase Defense Spending: Significantly boost the defense budget to fund military readiness, procurement of weapons, and technological advancements.

Prioritize Critical Industries: Identify and support industries essential to war efforts, such as aerospace, manufacturing, energy, and technology, through subsidies, tax incentives, and government contracts.

Strategic Reserves: Build up reserves of critical materials like oil, rare earth metals, and food supplies to ensure supply chain resilience.

4. Supply Chain and Infrastructure

Strengthen Domestic Production: Reduce reliance on foreign suppliers by incentivizing domestic production of critical goods.

-Alaska

Infrastructure Investment: Upgrade transportation, energy, and communication infrastructure to support military logistics and economic resilience.

Cybersecurity: Bolster cybersecurity measures to protect critical infrastructure and economic systems from enemy attacks.

7. Technological and Innovation Investments

R&D Funding: Increase funding for research and development in defense technologies, such as AI, drones, and cyber warfare.

Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborate with private companies to accelerate innovation and production of military technologies.

-Ai investment & musk

10. Environmental and Energy Considerations

Energy Independence: Accelerate efforts to achieve energy independence through renewable energy and domestic fossil fuel production.

-Alaska

Environmental Protections: Balance wartime production with environmental safeguards to avoid long-term ecological damage.

Key Aspects of Detaining "Aliens" for Misdemeanors

1. Targeting Non-Citizens:
2. A policy that singles out non-citizens for detention based on minor offenses could be seen as discriminatory and disproportionate.This could create a two-tiered justice system where non-citizens are treated more harshly than citizens for the same offenses.
3. Expansion of Detention Powers:
4. Detaining individuals for misdemeanors, which are typically minor crimes (e.g., petty theft, traffic violations), could represent a significant expansion of state power.Such a policy might be justified as a measure to enforce immigration laws, but it could also be criticized as overly punitive and inconsistent with principles of proportionality.
5. Due Process Concerns:
6. Detaining non-citizens for misdemeanors could raise due process issues, particularly if detainees are held without adequate legal representation or access to fair hearings.

Comparison to NSDAP Laws

1. Targeting Marginalized Groups:
2. NSDAP Parallel: The NSDAP enacted laws that systematically targeted marginalized groups, particularly Jews, but also Roma, LGBTQ+ individuals, and political dissidents. These laws stripped them of rights, subjected them to arbitrary detention, and ultimately led to mass incarceration and genocide.S.5 Parallel: If S.5 disproportionately targets non-citizens, particularly those from specific racial, ethnic, or national groups, it could be seen as similarly discriminatory. However, the scale and intent would likely differ significantly from the NSDAP’s genocidal policies.
3. Arbitrary Detention:
4. NSDAP Parallel: The NSDAP used arbitrary detention as a tool of political repression, imprisoning individuals without due process in concentration camps.S.5 Parallel: Detaining non-citizens for misdemeanors could be seen as arbitrary if the punishments are disproportionate to the offenses or if the policy is applied inconsistently.
5. Erosion of Rule of Law:
6. NSDAP Parallel: The NSDAP dismantled the rule of law, subordinating the judiciary to the regime and eliminating legal protections for targeted groups.S.5 Parallel: If S.5 undermines due process or creates a separate legal system for non-citizens, it could erode the rule of law. However, in a democratic system like the U.S., such a policy would likely face legal challenges and public opposition.

Key Aspects of Detaining "Aliens" for Misdemeanors

1. Targeting Non-Citizens:
2. A policy that singles out non-citizens for detention based on minor offenses could be seen as discriminatory and disproportionate.This could create a two-tiered justice system where non-citizens are treated more harshly than citizens for the same offenses.
3. Expansion of Detention Powers:
4. Detaining individuals for misdemeanors, which are typically minor crimes (e.g., petty theft, traffic violations), could represent a significant expansion of state power.Such a policy might be justified as a measure to enforce immigration laws, but it could also be criticized as overly punitive and inconsistent with principles of proportionality.
5. Due Process Concerns:
6. Detaining non-citizens for misdemeanors could raise due process issues, particularly if detainees are held without adequate legal representation or access to fair hearings.

Comparison to NSDAP Laws

1. Targeting Marginalized Groups:
2. NSDAP Parallel: The NSDAP enacted laws that systematically targeted marginalized groups, particularly Jews, but also Roma, LGBTQ+ individuals, and political dissidents. These laws stripped them of rights, subjected them to arbitrary detention, and ultimately led to mass incarceration and genocide.S.5 Parallel: If S.5 disproportionately targets non-citizens, particularly those from specific racial, ethnic, or national groups, it could be seen as similarly discriminatory. However, the scale and intent would likely differ significantly from the NSDAP’s genocidal policies.
3. Arbitrary Detention:
4. NSDAP Parallel: The NSDAP used arbitrary detention as a tool of political repression, imprisoning individuals without due process in concentration camps.S.5 Parallel: Detaining non-citizens for misdemeanors could be seen as arbitrary if the punishments are disproportionate to the offenses or if the policy is applied inconsistently.
5. Erosion of Rule of Law:
6. NSDAP Parallel: The NSDAP dismantled the rule of law, subordinating the judiciary to the regime and eliminating legal protections for targeted groups.S.5 Parallel: If S.5 undermines due process or creates a separate legal system for non-citizens, it could erode the rule of law. However, in a democratic system like the U.S., such a policy would likely face legal challenges and public opposition.

According to Huffpost "Only 1 in 20 could name all five freedoms protected by the First Amendment (speech, religion, the right to assembly, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government)."

Would it divide the country further or boost the electors foundation?

*SPECULATIVE

The Civic Literacy and Informed Voting Act

Preamble:
Whereas an informed electorate is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy;
Whereas civic education and critical thinking are foundational to making informed decisions at the polls;
Whereas the United States is committed to ensuring that all citizens have equal access to the knowledge and tools necessary to participate fully in the democratic process;
Now, therefore, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

Section 1: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the "Civic Literacy and Informed Voting Act."

Section 2: Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to:

1. Promote civic literacy and critical thinking skills among all citizens.
2. Provide accessible, free, and voluntary opportunities for citizens to enhance their understanding of government, civics, and logical reasoning.
3. Encourage informed participation in the electoral process without imposing barriers to voting.

Section 3: Establishment of the National Civic Education Program

(a) Program Creation: There is hereby established the National Civic Education Program (NCEP), administered by the Department of Education in collaboration with state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations.

(b) Program Components: The NCEP shall include:

1. Civics Curriculum Development: The creation of a standardized, free, and publicly accessible civics curriculum covering:
2. The structure and function of the U.S. government.The rights and responsibilities of citizens.The history of voting rights and democratic movements in the United States.Logical reasoning, critical thinking, and media literacy.
3. Voluntary Civic Literacy Assessment: The development of a voluntary, non-punitive assessment to evaluate understanding of civics and logical reasoning. This assessment shall:
4. Be available in multiple languages and formats (online, in-person, and accessible for individuals with disabilities).Include questions on government structure, constitutional principles, and practical voting information.Offer immediate feedback and resources for further learning.
5. Public Awareness Campaigns: Nationwide campaigns to inform citizens about the availability of the civics curriculum and voluntary assessment.

Section 4: Accessibility and Inclusivity

(a) Free Access: All materials, resources, and assessments under this Act shall be provided free of charge to all citizens.
(b) Language Accessibility: All materials and assessments shall be made available in the most commonly spoken languages in the United States, as determined by the Census Bureau.
(c) Disability Accommodations: The NCEP shall ensure that all materials and assessments are accessible to individuals with disabilities, including visual, auditory, and cognitive impairments.
(d) Community Outreach: The NCEP shall partner with schools, libraries, community centers, and nonprofit organizations to ensure broad access to the program, particularly in underserved and marginalized communities.

Section 5: Voluntary Nature of the Assessment

(a) Non-Mandatory Participation: Participation in the Civic Literacy Assessment shall be entirely voluntary. No citizen shall be required to take the assessment as a condition of voter eligibility or registration.
(b) Incentives for Participation: To encourage participation, the NCEP may offer non-monetary incentives, such as certificates of civic engagement or public recognition, to individuals who complete the assessment.
(c) Prohibition of Discrimination: The results of the assessment shall not be used to deny, restrict, or otherwise impact any individual’s right to vote, access to public services, or eligibility for employment.

Section 6: Oversight and Accountability

(a) Independent Commission: An independent commission, composed of educators, civil rights advocates, and representatives from both major political parties, shall oversee the development and implementation of the NCEP.
(b) Bias Monitoring: The commission shall regularly review the curriculum and assessment to ensure they are free from racial, cultural, or socioeconomic bias.
(c) Public Reporting: The commission shall submit an annual report to Congress and the President on the effectiveness of the program, including participation rates, feedback from participants, and recommendations for improvement.

Section 7: Funding

(a) Authorization of Appropriations: There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Grants to States and Localities: The Department of Education shall provide grants to state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations to support the implementation of the NCEP.

Section 8: Effective Date

This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of its enactment.

Statement of Intent

This Act is intended to empower citizens with the knowledge and skills necessary to participate fully in the democratic process. It is not designed to create barriers to voting or to exclude any individual or group from participating in elections. Rather, it seeks to strengthen democracy by fostering an informed, engaged, and critical electorate.

This wording emphasizes the voluntary, educational, and inclusive nature of the initiative while addressing potential concerns about discrimination or disenfranchisement. It also ensures that the program is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their background or circumstances.

Would a law as below be overreaching?
The Civic Literacy and Informed Voting Act

Preamble:
Whereas an informed electorate is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy;
Whereas civic education and critical thinking are foundational to making informed decisions at the polls;
Whereas the United States is committed to ensuring that all citizens have equal access to the knowledge and tools necessary to participate fully in the democratic process;
Now, therefore, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

Section 1: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the "Civic Literacy and Informed Voting Act."

Section 2: Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to:

1. Promote civic literacy and critical thinking skills among all citizens.
2. Provide accessible, free, and voluntary opportunities for citizens to enhance their understanding of government, civics, and logical reasoning.
3. Encourage informed participation in the electoral process without imposing barriers to voting.

Section 3: Establishment of the National Civic Education Program

(a) Program Creation: There is hereby established the National Civic Education Program (NCEP), administered by the Department of Education in collaboration with state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations.

(b) Program Components: The NCEP shall include:

1. Civics Curriculum Development: The creation of a standardized, free, and publicly accessible civics curriculum covering:
2. The structure and function of the U.S. government.The rights and responsibilities of citizens.The history of voting rights and democratic movements in the United States.Logical reasoning, critical thinking, and media literacy.
3. Voluntary Civic Literacy Assessment: The development of a voluntary, non-punitive assessment to evaluate understanding of civics and logical reasoning. This assessment shall:
4. Be available in multiple languages and formats (online, in-person, and accessible for individuals with disabilities).Include questions on government structure, constitutional principles, and practical voting information.Offer immediate feedback and resources for further learning.
5. Public Awareness Campaigns: Nationwide campaigns to inform citizens about the availability of the civics curriculum and voluntary assessment.

Section 4: Accessibility and Inclusivity

(a) Free Access: All materials, resources, and assessments under this Act shall be provided free of charge to all citizens.
(b) Language Accessibility: All materials and assessments shall be made available in the most commonly spoken languages in the United States, as determined by the Census Bureau.
(c) Disability Accommodations: The NCEP shall ensure that all materials and assessments are accessible to individuals with disabilities, including visual, auditory, and cognitive impairments.
(d) Community Outreach: The NCEP shall partner with schools, libraries, community centers, and nonprofit organizations to ensure broad access to the program, particularly in underserved and marginalized communities.

Section 5: Voluntary Nature of the Assessment

(a) Non-Mandatory Participation: Participation in the Civic Literacy Assessment shall be entirely voluntary. No citizen shall be required to take the assessment as a condition of voter eligibility or registration.
(b) Incentives for Participation: To encourage participation, the NCEP may offer non-monetary incentives, such as certificates of civic engagement or public recognition, to individuals who complete the assessment.
(c) Prohibition of Discrimination: The results of the assessment shall not be used to deny, restrict, or otherwise impact any individual’s right to vote, access to public services, or eligibility for employment.

Section 6: Oversight and Accountability

(a) Independent Commission: An independent commission, composed of educators, civil rights advocates, and representatives from both major political parties, shall oversee the development and implementation of the NCEP.
(b) Bias Monitoring: The commission shall regularly review the curriculum and assessment to ensure they are free from racial, cultural, or socioeconomic bias.
(c) Public Reporting: The commission shall submit an annual report to Congress and the President on the effectiveness of the program, including participation rates, feedback from participants, and recommendations for improvement.

Section 7: Funding

(a) Authorization of Appropriations: There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Grants to States and Localities: The Department of Education shall provide grants to state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations to support the implementation of the NCEP.

Section 8: Effective Date

This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of its enactment.

Statement of Intent

This Act is intended to empower citizens with the knowledge and skills necessary to participate fully in the democratic process. It is not designed to create barriers to voting or to exclude any individual or group from participating in elections. Rather, it seeks to strengthen democracy by fostering an informed, engaged, and critical electorate.

This wording emphasizes the voluntary, educational, and inclusive nature of the initiative while addressing potential concerns about discrimination or disenfranchisement. It also ensures that the program is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their background or circumstances.

I was talking to my mom about Trump's crap and she figures that soon all (or at least most) Republicans in the house and senate will eventually soon not take it anymore, impeach him and throw him out. Now I'm not sure if that is possible or not cause they don't seem to have the b___s to stand up against Trump since they would be more worried about their jobs and ...lives. Also, what would push them to the breaking point to go against him? This is an honest question!

Yes they do! I have seen post like this pondering things like, “… that tariffs will hurt American’s.” Yes, they do and they don’t care. Stop underestimating the Trump administration, and realize that all of their actions are cold and calculated with little concern for the suffering it will cause.

I know at the moment it's due to the frustration of the last couple of weeks, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine online and we just feel like there's just very little incentive to vote again.

It's not so much that the people you want to be in office lost because that just happens. Some people win, some people lose. That's how voting works. It's just the events of the last couple of weeks, and in my case, I'm watching Democrat elected officials go on vacation and just watch Elon Musk stage a coup and begin taking over entire departments, and no one is doing anything about it.

In just the last few days, Musk has seized control of the financial department that is in control of all of our social security numbers, social security programs including disability and retirement, among others. The head literally quit rather than continue what he said was a bunch of crap going on in DC right now. Then, they've announced musk's people went in to some other department and demanded access, and the employees refused and were threatened with arrest. They luckily stood their ground, but then must cause the White House and those employees are laid off on administrative leave and he takes that over too. WTH is going on?

Aside from a couple of Democrats who have stood in front of a TV camera and complained about it, no one is really doing anything. Most everybody has been out of session, with no visible effort to come back to DC to organize and stop this. Why should I be voting for any of these people again? They're just going to sit back and watch this happen?

So what do we do when regardless of which side you are on you truly do not want anybody who's running in office? No government at all? Just a free-for-all wild wild west?

I am beginning to see a growing wave of retaliatory remarks against Americans as individuals rather than the president and his corrupt power-seeking agenda. This is exactly what Trump wants; if he can turn us into enemies at the individual level, he can push his agenda and escalate more easily. We need to stay strong and united against his ideology as the common enemy.

“From the beaches of Normandy, to the mountains of the Korean Peninsula, from the fields of Flanders, to the streets of Kandahar, we have fought and died alongside you.”

I plead with my fellow Canadians to not fall into the trap of thinking that the above quote from our Prime Minister yesterday no longer rings true. We must stand together in opposition to this divisive agenda.

To our American brothers and sisters- you are our greatest hope in righting the course by fighting back from within. Please take a stand for what is right and let your voice be heard. Imagine how different the course of history might have been if the German people stood up against Hitler and his hateful rhetoric against the “other” early in his rise to power. History repeats when we do not learn. Whether it’s Mein Kampf or Manifest Destiny, the leader that stands behind a message of power and greatness at any cost rather than unity and cooperation must be considered a real threat to society.

Let us stand up and fight alongside each other as allies do.

One of the most dangerous aspects of history is how easily people can be manipulated into believing that a leader has their best interests at heart, while, in reality, that leader is leading them down a path of destruction. Adolf Hitler, one of the most infamous dictators in history, did not rise to power through brute force alone. He was not an obvious monster when he first spoke to crowds. He did not begin with open declarations of war and genocide. Instead, he carefully constructed an image of himself as the savior of his people, using rhetoric that played on their fears, frustrations, and hopes.

If you read through his speeches and writings, including Mein Kampf, you will notice a pattern. He constantly positioned himself as someone who understood the pain of ordinary people, someone who was fighting against corruption, someone who was willing to challenge the elites who had betrayed the nation. He spoke about Germany as a victim, humiliated, wronged, and in desperate need of revival. He told people that they had been tricked by outside forces, that their suffering was not their own fault, but the result of enemies lurking among them.

One of the most chilling aspects of his rhetoric is how he mixed half-truths with lies to create a version of reality that made people feel justified in their anger. In a speech from 1922, he said, “The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” This was not just an observation, it was a strategy. He understood that logical arguments, facts, and reasoned discussions were not what moved the masses. Emotion did. Fear did. A sense of belonging to something greater than oneself did.

He promised stability at a time of chaos, jobs at a time of economic ruin, and pride at a time when people felt humiliated by the aftermath of World War One. But his version of stability meant brutal suppression of anyone who opposed him. His promise of jobs was built on a militarized economy and forced labor. His version of national pride required the destruction of entire groups of people.

In one of his speeches, he declared, “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.” This is a critical lesson in understanding how dangerous leaders manipulate populations. They do not rely on reasoned debates. They do not encourage people to think critically. Instead, they create a sense of urgency, a feeling that action must be taken immediately. They manufacture crises or exaggerate real ones, then present themselves as the only ones capable of solving them. They make people feel as if they are under attack, and that anyone who questions their leadership is either blind or a traitor.

This is how dictators rise. Not by openly stating their worst intentions, but by cloaking them in the language of hope and progress. By convincing people that their suffering is not the result of complex historical, economic, or political forces, but rather the work of a clearly defined enemy. They do not begin by saying they will destroy democracy, they begin by saying they are the only ones who can truly fix it.

Psychologists have long studied why people fall for these kinds of leaders, and one key factor is something called the illusion of explanatory depth. People tend to believe they understand more about political and economic issues than they actually do. When a leader presents a simple, emotionally charged explanation, it feels satisfying because it removes complexity. Instead of facing hard truths, such as economic downturns being caused by a mix of global and local factors, people are given a clear villain to blame. That is psychologically comforting, even if it is completely false.

Another psychological concept at play is the us versus them mentality, which dictators exploit relentlessly. When people feel that they are part of an in-group that is under threat, they become more likely to overlook contradictions in their leader’s statements. They become more likely to excuse immoral behavior as necessary for survival. This is why Hitler could openly say things like, “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one,” and still have millions follow him. Because once someone is emotionally invested in believing that a leader is their only hope, they will ignore even the most blatant warning signs.

It is terrifying to realize that people can be convinced to support actions they would otherwise find horrifying. But history has shown time and time again that when people feel desperate, when they feel afraid, when they feel like they are losing control over their lives, they will cling to anyone who tells them exactly what they want to hear. Even if that person is leading them toward destruction.

The most important lesson here is to always question leaders who rely on fear, who speak in absolutes, who divide people into us and them, and who dismiss any criticism as the work of enemies. Because history has already shown us what happens when people fail to recognize the warning signs.

Milton Friedman must be rolling in his grave.

If we are serious about protecting American industries, we need to stop playing trade war and instead just go all in on autarky by  identifying, protecting and maintaining any  key domestic manufacturing and resource pipelines whose disruption under a war timing footing; or as a lever by foreign actors  to obtain concessions on future disagreement or policy negotiation, would cause significant issues to social, economic, and or military capacity or stability; viz, pour resources into any  strategic sectors by subsidizing them with grants, tax rebates, and direct investments until these nascent, growing or critical industries hit the  economies of scale, innovation, or risk mitigation for disruption to continuance of government that those initial and ongoing investments provide more than enough  positive ROI to offset the deficit spending needed to reach that point.

I just can’t fathom why a government that is so tolerant of highly visible faction of its voter base, and more than 1 of it’s elected or leading party members penchant for play acting out as members of last centuries least tolerant government members via their  --from my heart to your -- physical, rhetorical and conceptual ticks;  is so hesitant to just fully commit to the bit and go all in on dirigiste economic policy -- the Axis Power’s economic  model of choice after all – by dropping the tariff nonsense and just  pursuing more sound policy initiatives like the 500 billion AI Data Center Design/Infrastructure Stargate fund for other sectors.

Meanwhile launching a trade war that smothers external demand for our domestic production is nothing short of self-sabotage, it may quickly lead to knock on effects that increase the costs of government funding via lower t note demand, higher interest rates and stagnated or deflationary economy.

Further, and one really must stress this;  by this now  everyone at the policy making table not merely the Weimar or Dutch republics of the world  should be fully aware that trade wars often wind up as the present day shadow of looming future War wars.

That is to say these new,  previous Trump and (the worst of them Biden’s) trade policies are already pointing the long barrel of future unintended consequences firmly in our direction. Chinese domestic semiconductor capacity is already at (Cixin PI) or quickly catching up to  parity to our pwn. Their GPU (Moore Threads Technology Co. Ltd.), x86 (Zhaoxin Semiconductor), and the aforementioned already at  performance parity  Cixin P1 ARM processor (by Cixin Technology, one of their dozen arm chipset manufactures) are quickly going to erode away at the 15–25% revenue share that American chip manufacturers currently enjoy. While ongoing initiatives into RISC-V open source chipset manufacturing coupled with QEMU and other translation and emulation services like the ones behind Snapdragon’s impressive x86 on windows arm64 performance (and appls Rossetta layer prior to that) will just completely sidestep the remaining bugaboo of maintaining patent license agreements for their fabs.

Worst yet, considering the military, economic, and R&D implications of an ASI or a highly scalable, parallel solution-space-exploring AGI leveraged to fast track government/miltary/research initiatives  our continued trade embargoes off high end nvidia chips needed for needed for AI/LM training and inference could very fairly be taken as a more than justified casus belli for china to go hot and forcibly repatriating Taiwanese semiconductor industry, knowledge and manufacturing capacity as a means to restore access to what is and will increasingly be one of those key strategic resources needed by a state to secure it’s continued existence and international footing.

When I hear of the sort of people who defend racy magazine photoshoots, I picture shining knights. I picture people standing tall against society's hypocrisy in pretending everything from hate speech to TikTok is covered by freedom of expression, yet turn around and pretend such magazines aren't protected by it because they have "nothing to say" (in between bemoaning the "messages they send", of course). For standing up to this hypocrisy, they get smeared as porn addicts. Yet they do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

When I hear of the sorts of people who defend wearing scantily clad attire in public, a very different image comes to mind. An image shaped by years of them making any tightening of dress codes out to be a slippery-slope to Iranian modesty standards, but arbitrarily never make loosening them out to be a slippery slope to public nudity. An image shaped by years of them calling school principals pedophiles for doing their jobs by enforcing the dress code, and then when someone tells them about Chinese schools that make women enforce the dress code just ignore it. An image shaped by hearing of people who call critics of JLo/Shakira's halftime outfits "just jealous." (The hell they are... there are women more buxom who aren't as prone to showing off about it.) An image of people who make me want to avoid having too much of my worldview in common with them, albeit leaving behind the question of to what extent.

And of course, in the Megyn Kelly context, there is the added burden of hypocrisy on the other end of the dichotomy; how is it not hypocritical for Internet culture to pretend that she's "ugly" and make her (supposed) face lift fair game for criticism, but then turn around and condemn photoshoots that she would only benefit from if magazine purchasers found her attractive?

I don't know what the "in and of itself" distinction is, as far as what could be wrong with showing off in public but not with doing so in photoshoots is. Unwanted public arousal? I don't want to throw under the bus those who got it from daydreaming. Distraction? One can be distracted by the most comparatively wholesome and innocent forms of beauty, albeit in a manner that doesn't reduce bloodflow to the brain. But in my mind's eye, an "in and of itself" distinction isn't needed. "What sorts of defenders these sorts of things attract" is the only distinction that needs to be made.

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for feedback on an essay I’ve written that explores themes of patriotism, herd mentality, and individuality, specifically in the context of modern American society. My influences include thinkers like George Orwell, Franz Kafka, and Albert Camus, as well as my background in punk music and forensics. The essay examines how societal forces encourage conformity and suppress individuality, particularly in relation to the police, nationalism, and American identity.

Context & Purpose of the Essay:

The essay is designed as part of a speech I’m preparing for a VHSL (Virginia High School League) forensics competition. I aim to critique blind patriotism, herd mentality, and how these forces shape national identity, while calling for a deeper embrace of individuality and critical self-awareness. It references historical and philosophical sources, like Orwell’s definition of patriotism, Simone de Beauvoir’s "Other," and Kafka’s exploration of the individual’s role in society. Specific Areas Where I’d Appreciate Feedback:

Argumentation & Structure: Does the essay effectively build its points, or do any sections need more clarity or focus? Philosophical & Political Consistency: Do the references to Orwell, Kafka, Camus, and other thinkers hold up in the context of the argument? Are there any ideas that seem to conflict or need more explanation? Tone & Accessibility: Given that I’m trying to reach a wide audience with varied perspectives, do you think the tone is engaging without losing its depth? Is it too convoluted or does it maintain a balance between being thought-provoking and accessible? Use of Personal Experience: I use my own quirks and biases to reflect on how we all get caught up in societal pressures. Do you think this is effective or does it distract from the broader message? Overall Impact: Does the essay’s conclusion—about embracing individuality and rejecting conformity—come across clearly and persuasively? How might it resonate with people from different political or cultural backgrounds? What I’m Not Looking For:

General critiques about style without specific examples. Feedback on grammar or spelling (this has already been edited). Additional Notes: I’m open to any constructive criticism that can help me refine my ideas and make the essay stronger. Whether you’re someone who agrees or disagrees with the points raised, I would love to hear your thoughts on how I can improve or better communicate these concepts.

Thanks in advance for your time and feedback!

I 100% copied this body paragraph from ChatGPT I don’t want to just put my ideas out there though as it is a part of a competition so if you just comment on this post I’ll dm it to you

I know I posted this before but I should be more clear about my prediction!

With all the terrible things Trump is doing (don't even need to say what cause you should have several in your head right now) I'm sure people badly want to get him out of office. But since everyone feels impeaching is not an option, they may do something desperate. I know for sure there will be huge protests in DC and they will get violent. Whither it is caused by protestors or not, they will be pushed to get violent and Trump will use an excuse to kill them (we know he will) and there is no telling how it will end.

This is what scares me! I feel it's inevitable!

Sensational title, I know, I was having a hard time deciding how to word it.

This take is probably late to the point of irrelevancy, but I'm slow and bad at social media/gathering my thoughts.

I don't think we, as US residents, are actually all that polarized on common issues. Polling on big policy stuff is consistently lopsided, and favors what I would call "progressive ideals" in the majority of cases.

For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use Gallup here as a benchmark. Also, I'm going to try to paraphrase the wording of the questions in a very brief way. Lastly, I'll be doing quick averaging and trying to discount spikes in either direction. IOW I'm trying to make it quick and understandable.

Gay marriage: 69% support.

Abortion bans: Consistent sub-20% support.

Firearms reform: Sub-15% want looser restrictions.

Immigration: 65%+ say immigration is a "good thing".

Taxes: Sub-4% personal taxes are "too low". :' )

I could go on, but It's best to just look at this graph: https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx - It's the one 1/3 down on the page, with lots of green bars. (Sorry, I wanted to post it as an image, but couldn't.)

The above graph (please take a look, it's really good) shows broad, no, overwhelming consensus on the importance of most issues.

Of course there are stark deviations on some of these when party affiliation is superimposed as a factor in the polling. That's normal. Party is only one aspect of a person. Also, polling shows "Independent" self-labeling as increasingly more common than Rep. or Dem. That's a major clue for me.

To me, this points at a real lack of thoughtful analysis. Playing on every one of these issues as "polarizing" or "divisive" is lazy and irresponsible. Some would probably say that media/pundits/influencers do this on purpose, knowingly misrepresenting very clear majorities on major issues as impossibly divided. I think that's probably true in many cases, but there's also the reactionary portion of coverage to account for, not to mention the relatively disengaged public. Sensationalism sells ads, and research takes time.

tl:dr Most people care about the same issues. Clear majorities agree, in general terms, on remedies for many common issues.

My take: We need to *carefully de-prioritize the positions of the vocal minorities who (knowingly or not) play into the "impossibly polarized" narrative and focus on boring, if difficult solutions to big problems we all face.

*By carefully, I mean to avoid disenfranchising minority positions that exist as a rule. We can't just ignore positions because there are simply too few people for whom the issue applies to have any voice. This is more about the polarized political minority. I hope that comes across adequately. : )

We were lied to and betrayed by our representatives. U.S.A. is run by the elite and it couldn't be more obvious. The corrupt and dishonest are emboldened enough now they've removed the guies of civility and have laid siege against us from our own homes. They cannot be trusted and we are not helpless!

Now is the time for us to realize there is no left or right. We've been watching this ruse play out for half a century, a farce by the obese, anti-social narcissists to make us believe otherwise. The last president thowing a parting shot as it leaves is our wakeup call (paraphrased): 'America is an oligarchy now, I've secured my family from the fallout and so should you. Good luck!'

So I ask those who governed: why didn't you stop it when you were elected?! The answer is simple: they're part of the lie and played their own role in selling us all a bridge to nowhere. The Obesely Rich are pleased we're not paying attention to their theft of America and want it that way. Wake up!

Social media is our modern Roman Colosseum; filled with hate, anger, and revenge designed to distract, decieve, and control us and force us to perform in the blood of our brothers and sisters for their amusement. Rabid, divicive speech promoted with an aim to alienate us from our neighbors, our friends, and our families was effective. We were tricked to believe our problems are our own fault, we didn't work hard enough, and the way out is to rollover, give more money to the rich, and thank them for the opportunity. Lies! Their Lies have alienated and taken our loved ones from us!

We've been lied to that empathy is weak, love is weak, seeking common ground is weak, and the situation is only binary. Politics reduced to 'teams'. Win or lose. Money is our God.

All lies perpetrated by Oligarchs who are propped up as Saints to emulate and follow. It is a house built of straw easily toppled with any wind of change; we must band together to save our Homes from those seeking to destroy it. Despite all we've been told, we are not powerless and must rip the levers of governance from those who intentionally do us harm!

Now is the time to evict our oppressors! Together we stand, divided we fall.

Do not go quietly into the good night, exercise your Constitutional rights and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!

Something I’ve noticed especially with friends is how they express how they want to focus on things like the economy as a whole but have been fired for being gay, kicked out of places due to disability, or been harassed out in public for wearing religious items of clothing. They’d said that if people just didn’t give a damn about their lives as people they would have the ability to focus on these so called bigger issues as their lives/livelihoods are threatened for some part of their lives that isn’t hurting anyone. Hearing all of this for me makes me realize that while there are definitely some who use identity politics as this kinda La La Land thing, for others it’s a barrier they have to get over just to gain access to the ability to focus on other issues

Reform, by definiiton, means to change for the better. In that regard, the act was named the way that it is with a snuck premise. That snuch premise being that the act reformed the criminal justice system for the better. I would argue that that is not the case.

After Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, he was prosecuted for attempted murder and found not guilty for reason of insanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040872498/john-hinckley-unconditional-release https://apnews.com/article/health-courts-ronald-reagan-john-hinckley-310748b567235cc7e50f1a90f24eb0c3

Several members of the Reagan administration were very mad about this and implemented policies to make it harder for the insanity defence to hold up in a court of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_Defense_Reform_Act https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-634-insanity-defense-reform-act-1984#:~:text=created%20a%20special%20verdict%20of,serving%20a%20Federal%20prison%20sentence. https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/3771?s=1&r=99 http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/criminal-responsibility/insanity-defense-reform-act/ https://historyforensicpsych.umwblogs.org/the-insanity-defense-outline-by-andrew-garofolo/the-federal-insanity-defense-act-of-1984/

Hinckley was locked up in a mental institution until eventually being released in 2016. Hinkley is still alive today and has not shot anyone since ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr. ). That tells me that that the verdict of not guilty for reason of insanity was probably the right verdict and this decision to implement policies to make it harder for the insanity defence to hold up in a court of law had much more to do with anger and petty vengeance than they did with a genuine desire to reform the criminal justice system. The Insanity Defence and the chance that it will hold up in a court of law should go back to the way that it was before The Reagan era.

What do you think? Do you agree with me? If so, are there any points that I missed. If you disagree with me, I am willing to hear the argument. Tell me what you think.

I can’t stand when goofy people make everything about politics. I could say, I’m constipated and some lame ass will make it political. I hate everything about politics… always have, well before what it is now. I don’t trust any of them on any side. So trust I don’t talk politics, but some people cant help themselves in any situation.

I’ve coached tackle football for 13 years and the last 8 seasons there is always that coach and/or parent, who can’t stop meat riding his/her guy. Fuckin hats, shirts, comments, etc. I’m like bro get some vagina/dick or go rub one out. Anything but sucking off politics.

How do you handle people like that?

Preface: there is a logical fallacy here, correlation does not imply causation, and just because two things are similar does not mean that those who are fans of one will be fans of the other, however this essay seeks to identify one possible reason for this change in voting.

The “Manosphere”, Trump as a Fascist Figure, and the US Crisis of Democracy

Introduction

The US is experiencing a crisis of democracy. This is highlighted by the election of Donald Trump, a fascist figure, to office in the 2024 election. This paper will examine how fascism, and therefore Trump, aligns with the ideas and values of the growing “manosphere” in the US, which likely played a role in Trump’s 2024 election victory and the US slide towards fascism.

In the 2024 election, Trump greatly increased his proportion of young male votes. Men under 45 voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election by an 8-point margin, a 16-point shift from 2020, where the group voted for Biden by an 8-point margin.[1] This shift played a role in securing Trump’s 2024 victory. I believe that this shift could be explained by the following logic:

If:

1.     Trump is a fascist

2.     The manosphere, a relatively recent, growing movement made up of and catered towards young men, shares similar underlying ideas with fascism

Then:

 It logically follows that Trump would see an increase in support from young male voters, helping to secure his 2024 election victory and hastening the US slide towards fascism

Discussion

Trumpism as Fascism:

To prove that the manosphere’s shared ideas with fascism contributed to Trump’s 2024 increase in young male support, helping secure his 2024 victory, it must first be established that Trump is, in fact, a fascist figure, and that Trumpism is a form of fascism.

In Roberto Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism, a central idea is that while fascist regimes often look different on the surface, with different enemies and different spoken rhetoric, they tend to share the same underlying ideas and principles. This makes fascism difficult to define in the same way as other political movements, as only looking at the overt, spoken ideas would make fascist regimes appear to not have any single consistent philosophy or ideology.[2]  Paxton argues that to understand fascism, it is easiest to look at actions and how they show underlying “passions” rather than what fascist leaders say, as the statements made are often contradictory and not based in truth.[3] Paxton identifies some consistent qualities of fascism, such as the idea of a victim group locked in a constant Darwinian struggle against enemies[4], and eventually at the end of his book combines these underlying ideas and factors into the following working definition of fascism:

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a

mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion”.[5]

Another scholar, Umberto Eco, in his book, Ur-Fascism, references other common underlying ideas often seen in fascist regimes. Some of these features described are:

(1) a “cult of tradition”, which by consequence often lends itself to a belief that there can be no advancement of learning, as the truth has already been spelled out.

(2) “Irrationalism”, in other words, action for action’s sake. Actions must be taken before any reflection, so critical attitudes are suspect. This is characterized with a distrust for the intellectual world and attacking modern culture and the “liberal intelligentsia” for having betrayed traditional values.

(3) the exploitation and exacerbation of the natural fear of difference.

(4) derivation from individual or social frustration, with an appeal to a frustrated middle class and people who feel deprived of a clear social identity.[6]

Under either definition, Trumpism arguably meets the definition of fascism, or at the very least shares many similarities to past fascist regimes. Like other past fascist leaders, he often speaks in lies, but the truth of his statements is immaterial, as they carry the same underlying theme: that the “true Americans” are locked in a Darwinian struggle against their enemies, which he often highlights as illegal imm*grants, transgender people, liberals, or democrats. Take, for example, his recent comment, “they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.”[7] This claim was easily debunked and clearly false, yet it shares the same underlying message – that the “enemies” are here, they are taking our things, and the US must be cleansed of them, which appeals to the natural fear of difference. The same idea is shown in his obsession with the transgender population in his use of campaign ads saying Kamala Harris supports taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners and transgender operations on illegal ali*ns (censored because this subreddit doesn't like that word".[8] This is focused on a miniscule percentage of the population, yet Trumps campaign focused on these issues heavily to exploit the fear of difference. This also shows the underlying idea of him rigorously patrolling traditional gender roles as a form of traditionalism. He is obsessed with community decline and the “enemy within” as shown by his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” appealing to a frustrated middle class who wishes to return to a fictional utopia of the past. He appeals to people’s sense of social or individual frustration with the economy and politicians by presenting himself as an anti-political strongman who “tells it like it is” and isn’t afraid to get rid of the corruption/poison in the government. He collaborates with the traditional elites, such as Elon Musk and Dr. Mehmet Oz, appointing them to various governmental positions. He has publicly denounced the intellectual world by denying climate change.[9] He has gotten rid of liberties during his term by overturning Roe v. Wade, declaring that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. Even the final part of Paxton’s definition of fascism, abandoning democratic liberties and pursuing with violence without restraints the goal of internal cleansing, has been shown in the January 6^(th) riots involving Trump supporters violently storming the capitol for the purpose of disrupting the congress session convened to certify the results of the 2020 election, which Trump lost. After this, Paxton, who once declined to label Trump as a fascist figure, changed his mind, saying that the “turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it”[10], and that Trump’s encouragement of civic violence to overturn the election crossed a line, making the fascist label “not just acceptable but necessary.”[11] It is almost indisputably clear that Trump has met the definition of fascism.

The Manosphere:

Before addressing the similarities between the manosphere and fascism, one must first define the manosphere. The manosphere encompasses several different misogynistic groups, most prominently men’s rights activists (MRA’s), pick up Artists (PUA’s), involuntary celibates (“incels”), and the “red pilled”.[12]

MRA communities believe that men are disadvantaged by feminism. They criticize gender equality, women’s rights, and women’s status in society.[13] The more extreme members believe in reversing women’s rights outside of the domestic sphere such as voting and education due to their believe that women’s rights have contributed to a declining status and power of men in society. [14] They argue that male privilege is a myth and that society is “gynocentric”, meaning “dominated by or emphasizing feminine interests or a feminine point of view.” [15]

The PUA community shares a similar traditionalist view to some of the MRA community, with some members claiming that a woman’s place is in the household and blaming women and feminism for an alleged increasing intolerance towards men.[16] The community largely focuses on teaching members how to manipulate women into sex, in line with their idea that men are owed sex by women.

Incels are a community of men that believe they are entitled to sex, and they are being denied that right by women.[17] This line of thinking views women as the source of their individual and social frustration, which in turn leads to their hatred of feminism and women. The Incel community generalizes men and women into different types. For men, there are the incels (themselves), the “Alphas”, also called “Chads”, and the “Betas”. The “Alphas”/”Chads” are the men who are successful with women and conventionally attractive.[18] The “Betas” are the “normies”, those of average or below attractiveness who can sometimes have sex, however women will leave them for the “Alphas” when given the chance.[19] For women, there are “Stacys” and “Beckys”. The “Stacys” are the unattainable, conventionally attractive, female equivalent of “Chads”, hated and perceived as hostile by the incel community, while “Beckys” are the female equivalent of the “beta”, which incels believe they are owed attention and sex from, viewing them as inferior.[20]

The “red pilled” are not necessarily a community, but rather a term used in the manosphere to describe those who have discovered the “truth”, which combines ideas common in the MRA, PUA, and incel community. The name is a reference to film, “The Matrix”, where the protagonist is offered a blue or red pill and taking the red pill shows him the true reality of the world. In the Manosphere, the “red pilled” are those who have recognized that “feminism is harmful to men, men are the victims of a “gynocentric” society, and that men are entitled to sex.[21] The “red pill” is essentially a manosphere theory of how society functions and gender dynamics occur in the world. 

The combination of these groups, among others, is what makes up the manosphere. This manosphere has grown in popularity in recent years, particularly with young men. The boom in popularity of one of the largest manosphere “influencers” Andrew Tate, is a prime example of this. Tate, a self-proclaimed misogynist and sexist,[22] promotes ideas consistent with many of the manosphere groups, such as how women are inferior and only good for sex and being abused, or his idea of the powerful “alpha male” who has value through having sex with lots of women.[23] He posts instructional/pick up videos similar to PUA’s in his “Hustler’s University” and “War Room” courses, and has promoted rape as a response to women accusing men of cheating.[24]

In 2022, Tate became widely known, with his videos on TikTok being viewed 11.6 billion times.[25] In December 2022, he had approximately 3.5 million followers on X.[26] By August 2024, this has increased to 9.9 million followers.[27] He was also the third most googled person in 2023.[28] This boom in following and exposure exemplifies the rapid growth of the dangerous manosphere in the US.

The Manosphere and Trumpism/Fascism:

The ideas of the growing manosphere share many similarities with fascist ideology. This likely was a contributing factor in the increase in young male votes for Trump, a fascist leader, in the 2024 election.

While on the surface, the manosphere and Trumpism might be argued to be different, as Trumpism tends to focus more on illegal imm*grants as enemies while the manosphere is more focused on sex and gender dynamics, the similarities are in the underlying, fascist ideas. These similarities are what might lead those involved in the manosphere to also vote for Trump. Both the manosphere and Trumpism/fascism promote the idea of a Darwinian struggle against enemies. In the manosphere, this Darwinian struggle is shown in its view of gender relations. It promotes the idea that power is being taken away from men in modern society due to women and feminism, and that sex is a zero-sum game, with men gaining power from it and women losing power. The common internal enemy being promoted in this case is women, for denying men sex that they are entitled to and reducing the power of men in modern society. Trumpism promotes a similar idea of the Darwinian struggle against enemies through his idea of the “true Americans” having their jobs and women taken away by illegal imm*grants. Trump says that illegal imm*grants are raping our women and stealing our jobs. He highlights the non “true Americans” like illegal imm*grants, the trans population, and liberals as enemies who take the “true American’s” tax dollars and efforts for themselves. On the surface, these seem different, with two different enemies or scapegoats, but the underlying idea is the same. The young men involved in the Manosphere who are being taught that life is a zero-sum game with winners and losers, where they are at risk of internal enemies such as women taking away their power, are likely to resonate with Trumpism, as it closely aligns with this fascist idea of societal Darwinism and placing blame on enemies within for our problems.

Both the manosphere and Trumpism also appeal to people’s sense of individual or social frustration and portray their chosen groups as the victims of modern society. They each express a desire to return to an earlier, “better” time, promoting traditionalist values and vigorously patrolling gender roles. The manosphere, particularly the incel subgroup, appeals to young men experiencing a sense of individual frustration with being unable to have sex with women, or have any sort of relationships with women. It paints as victims the men who are experiencing social frustration with feminism, who believe that society has turned on them with the modern feminist movement, taking men’s power and giving it to women. Because of this, the manosphere promotes the idea of returning to an earlier time, where men had all the power and women were supposed to tend to the home and children, their purpose being to serve men. They desire to return to the earlier time of traditional gender roles, rolling back women’s rights. Trumpism shares similar ideas of traditionalism and returning to an earlier time. He appeals to people’s individual and social frustrations with the economy and politics, portraying the chosen group of “true Americans” as victims of modern society, with the enemy being the illegal imm*grants taking their jobs and women. He also points to other internal enemies like the transgender population and liberals forcing “true Americans” to spend their taxes on sex changes for prisoners as a part of the “woke agenda”. His slogan, “Make America Great Again” implies his desire to return to traditionalist values, pointing to a time where our borders were secure and the “woke agenda” didn’t exist. His removal of democratic liberties like the constitutional right to abortion show his commitment to those traditionalist values and underlying gender politics through reinforcing the idea that women are just supposed to be mothers and caretakers. These similarities likely make Trumpism appealing to the young men in the Manosphere. Even though there are differences between the two, the underlying ideas are the same. Both emphasize the idea of a return to traditional values and gender roles, blame various internal enemies for the chosen group’s problems, paint the chosen group as a victim of modern society, and offer their ideas as a solution.

Conclusion

Trumpism and the Manosphere share the same underlying fascist ideas of a Darwinian struggle, internal enemies, obsession with community decline, traditionalist values, abandonment of democratic liberties, and a portrayal of victimhood. These similarities likely make Trumpism particularly appealing to people in the manosphere. This appeal, combined with the growth of the manosphere in the US, could explain Trump’s increase in young male votes in the 2024 election, resulting in his victory and contributing to the US crisis of democracy.

[1] Maryann Cousens, 2024 Post-Election Survey: Gender and Age Analysis of 2024 Election Results, Navigator, (Dec. 12, 2024), https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-gender-and-age-analysis-of-2024-election-results/

[2] Roberto Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism 41 (2004).

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 16.

[5] Id. at 218.

[6] Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism (1995).

[7] Merlyn Thomas & Mike Wendling, Trump repeats baseless claim about Hatian immigrants eating pets, BBC, (Sep. 15, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77l28myezko

[8] HeathStory, 2024 Trump ‘Nonsense’ Ad, Youtube (Sep. 20, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhnHt1NB0M0

[9] Jonathan Lemire et al., Trump spurns science on climate: ‘Don’t think science knows’, AP, (Sep. 14, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-elections-joe-biden-campaigns-bd152cd786b58e45c61bebf2457f9930

[10] Elisabeth Zerofsky, Is It Fascism? A Leading Historian Changes His Mind., The New York Times, (Oct. 23, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html

[11] Id.

[12] The ‘Manosphere’, ISD Institute for Strategic Dialogue, (Sep. 20, 2022), https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/the-manosphere-explainer/

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Incels: A Guide to Symbols and Terminology, moonshot, 4, https://journal-exit.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Incels_-A-Guide-to-Symbols-and-Terminology_Moonshot-CVE.pdf (last visited Dec. 18, 2024).

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 5.

[21] The ‘Manosphere’, ISD Institute for Strategic Dialogue, (Sep. 20, 2022), https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/the-manosphere-explainer/.

[22] Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer, BBC, (Jul. 23, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64125045

[23] Andrew Tate: Five Things to Know, ADL Anti-Defamation League, (Jan. 3, 2024), https://www.adl.org/resources/article/andrew-tate-five-things-know

[24] Id.

[25] Shanti Das, Inside the violent, misogynistic world of TikTok’s new star, Andrew Tate, The Guardian, (Aug. 6, 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/andrew-tate-violent-misogynistic-world-of-tiktok-new-star

[26] Andrew Tate’s Twitter Stats Summary Profile, Social Blade, (webarchive Dec. 30, 2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20221230074212/https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/cobratate

[27] Matthew Weaver and agencies, Armed police raid Andrew Tate’s home in Romania, The Guardian, (Aug. 21, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/21/armed-police-raid-andrew-tate-home-romania

[28] Tom Acres, Google reveals what we searched for the most in 2023, Sky News, (Dec. 11, 2023),  https://news.sky.com/story/google-reveals-what-we-searched-for-the-most-in-2023-13028024

Our national parks are one of the jewels of The Republic. Some call it the greatest idea humanity ever had. In a world where profit and modernization are the standard there are parts of this country where nature and conservation reign with little competition. California alone has 9 national parks with varying climates and regions but all dedicated to a single mission: conservation, recreation and preservation.

That's why it's an insult that one of the most famous national parks in the world has an entire section of it dedicated to profit and use by a small section of The People. The Hetch Hetchy Project is a manipulation of The National Parks Service. The project consists of a dam blocking The Tuolumne River to create hydroelectric power and provide water to The San Francisco area. However this is a blatant disregard for the national park it sits in, the millions of people who stand to benefit from the valley's restoration and the valley itself.

The entirety of the reservoir sits within Yosemite National Park. Before the valley was destroyed by the damn many who visited it compared it to the Great Yosemite Valley just south of it. Now it's buried under hundreds of thousands gallons of water. Water that is being used by The City of San Francisco for profit by selling to its citizens, nearby cities and to private companies in a way that was allowed by the act that gave them the water.

Furthermore, because the water is set aside for the city, there is very little recreation allowed in and around the reservoir. The city puts unfair regulations around what The National Parks Service is allowed to do with what is effectively their territory. Recreation is how common people connect with our national parks. But this part, despite not being dangerous or set aside for conservation, is being held hostage from The People for profit.

Finally the use of this valley to hold water for a few has made preservation impossible in the area. How can history or nature be preserved correctly if buried under a gigantic for profit project by a group that doesn't care for anything but their water? The use of this ancient glacial valley, under the protection and responsibility of The National Parks Service, for profit and urbanization is antithetical and wrong.

So with Trump looking to reassert control and correct the mistakes of California's water mismanagement it is time to drain The Hetch Hetchy reservoir and begin restoring the valley to its original state.

The dam could easily be cut at the base, allowing water to drain without fully demolishing the dam. Smaller, less damaging, dams can be constructed down river to feed into the hydroelectric plants and the nearby Don Pedro Reservoir could be expanded to take in the extra water and send it to San Francisco, or better yet reallocate some of the water to The Central Valley.

The National Parks Service believes that the valley would only need 100 or so years to return to something close to pre reservoir state. That opens up a new place for Yosemite's tourists to go and newer places for trails and conservation efforts. If restoration and new tourism infrastructure are funded well that timeline can be cut down and the forest can return healthier and bigger than ever.

The San Francisco Area is not the most important area in the world. So why does it get to take from the most important idea in the world for profit? Donald Trump has an opportunity to add to protected land and fix the mismanagement of California's water in one blow. This is a moment where part of America can be made great again! We should seize it while it's here.

Hey everyone,

I know this is a topic that sparks a lot of strong opinions, but I want to take a step back from all the noise and look at this through the lens of something we can all agree on: American freedom.

One of the things that makes this country great is that our rights aren’t supposed to be a political football—passed back and forth between administrations like a partisan prize. True freedom isn’t something that one president expands and another rolls back. If a right is real, it should be consistent no matter who’s in office. That’s why I want to talk about something I believe every American should stand behind: the right of transgender people to live their lives freely, without unnecessary government interference.

Some will say that because the last administration pushed gender issues so hard, the current one is just “correcting” it. But let’s be honest—real freedom doesn’t swing with the political winds. Ronald Reagan said it best: “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” If we truly believe in limited government, then we can’t pick and choose when it applies. Telling people how they can identify, where they can exist, and what medical decisions they can make for themselves? That’s big government overreach at its worst. And it goes against everything conservatives have historically fought to protect.

This isn’t about “wokeness” or any political trend—it’s about whether we actually stand by the principles of freedom and individual rights. Growing up, I was always taught that what defines a person isn’t their background or identity, but their integrity, work ethic, and personal responsibility. That applies to every American—including transgender people.

I want to share a quick story about my friend Jake. He’s a decorated Navy veteran who served this country with honor, a man of deep faith, and a proud conservative. After years of struggle, he finally made the decision to live as the person he truly is. And despite the backlash, he continues to uphold the values we all respect: service, family, faith, and personal responsibility. I bring up Jake because he’s proof that this isn’t a “left-wing issue.” It’s an American issue. Trans people aren’t asking for special treatment—they’re just asking to live with the same dignity and rights as everyone else.

I get that some people approach this from a faith-based perspective, so let’s talk about it honestly. Supporting trans rights isn’t at odds with religious beliefs—if anything, it aligns perfectly with them. The Bible is clear: God gave us free will. Jesus never forced anyone to follow him—he invited them. Forcing others to live a certain way isn’t faith, it’s control. Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Some take this as proof that gender is rigid. But others—including biblical scholars—point out that this verse actually highlights the divine complexity of humanity. Jesus himself even referenced “eunuchs” in Matthew 19:12, acknowledging that not everyone fits into traditional gender roles.

If we truly believe that all people are made in God’s image, then that applies to trans people too. Treating them with dignity isn’t a political statement—it’s a moral obligation. One of the most repeated commands in Scripture is to protect the marginalized. Proverbs 31:8-9 says: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves… defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Trans people, especially trans youth, are among the most at-risk groups in the country. If we claim to follow Christian values, ignoring their suffering isn’t an option.

I get it—some people are worried about things like women’s spaces or fairness in sports. These concerns aren’t crazy, and they deserve real discussion. But here’s the truth: Most trans people just want to live their lives in peace. They are far more likely to be harassed than to harass others. Sports organizations already have rules to ensure fairness. The NCAA and other groups have strict policies to balance competition and inclusion. Some states have crafted laws that respect both women’s rights and trans dignity. Solutions exist—we just have to actually look for them. We don’t need fear-based policies. We need fact-based solutions.

True conservatism has never been about controlling people’s personal lives. It’s about small government, individual liberty, and trusting people to make their own choices. Barry Goldwater—the man who basically defined modern conservatism—once said: “A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” If we start letting the government decide whose identity is valid, we’re opening the door to all sorts of government control over personal lives. If we actually care about limited government, we should be the first ones fighting against laws that dictate how people must live—especially when those laws cause real harm.

You don’t have to agree with every point I made here. But I ask you to consider this: Fighting for trans rights isn’t about being progressive—it’s about being consistent.

• If we believe in personal freedom, it should apply to everyone.

• If we believe in small government, we shouldn’t support laws that police people’s identities.• If we believe in religious values, we should remember that love and justice come before judgment.

If you believe in true freedom, consider upvoting this. Not because you agree with every word, but because America should always stand for liberty—not oppression.

Could this be a power play move by the populous?

This is a long post...

I've been contemplating the current state of affairs and the landslide of challenges that the current administration presents to the status quo of business as usual. I think it's important to remember that we didn't get here overnight nor even did we arrive here just by tesseracting from the first Trump administration to today. This has been an silent revolution waged against the US by oligarchs for just over two decades now. This take over of American norms, standards, rule of law, the co-opting of the supreme court, and the removal of the separation of powers has been a steady diet of disinformation for 20 years that started with small little kernels of lies tied to facts.

Fox News led a disinformation campaign about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they gave a platform to Palin who was tied to the last of the stalwart GOP politicians, Mccain, and they gave airtime to birtherism claims against Obama. (In order for this not to bend conspiratorial, the use of the word they is referencing the oligarchs in media, government, and business.) They have had a script and they have been following it all along waiting for the moment that the kool-aid was consumed and palatable by a viewership and electoral body that would allow them to continue to slink off the standards of normal political discourse and functional government.

This was a takeover without one shot being fired. It was all a masterfully curated script of brainwashing enough Americans to create a Jonestown effect in the electorate that was the target audience. We all know someone who has been completely isolated to nothing more than right wing news media and filters their feeds to inundate them with only such misinformation. This keeps the kool-aid drip flowing.

But here, I think, is an important thing to consider: if we arrived here without shots fired, maybe the solution out is just as cunning but quicker...AND maybe they want shots to be fired? Another distraction played against the populous while they loot even more with a fabricated civil war. If you think about it, none of this sounds ridiculous. The policies of late are done so to ignite our emotions and vitriol which we know turns off the pragmatic part of the brain and leads to poor, thoughtless, but instinctive decision making.

So, how do we strategize in 2025 against this rising tide of oligarchy and intentional breaking of government institutions that will inevitably lead to the oligarchs getting government money to replace "broken" government institutions with their private AI driven or for profit businesses? Here is my thought. Is it a viable solution? I don't know. I do know that the language of the oligarch is money and power.

Ponder this: Instead of just jumping ship from social platforms owned by them, instead of stopping the purchase of products at stores that have bent the knee to them, there needs to be a bigger and better move. If this is a chess game, they've been playing chess while giving us checkers to play with. But we need a checkmate move that shows we recognize the game they're playing and are willing to break some things too.

Stopping your purchases at the store counter makes no difference to a corporation that is also receiving billions of dollars every pay period from 401k investments, IRAS, Roth IRAs, College Savings Funds, etc.. Remember no banker has gone to jail from their efforts in tanking the global economy in 2008, yet these institutions are the only ones relied on for retirement savings by design, yet ultimatley they don't care to wager others houses on risky investments. There is no price for them to pay. So what would it look like to pull out of their game? Take the penalty on the 401k, Roth IRA, IRA, any fund you have, put it in your mattress and make it a cash transaction society? Crash their system?

The following opinion I wrote is poorly researched and mixed, reflecting on the current conflict in the world around global authoritarian

As you know, the world is shifting towards the right because of a few reasons, the economy is currently on a crisis with the post pandemic the cause of its further decline,  people begins to hate the migrants instead of treating them as equals and there are many people in the world who are starting to disapprove democracy because it doesn’t  help most of the people including finance and most of the conservative in America don’t like the concept of the left agenda with a term “woke” and are tired of the climate change concept.  

Because of that, many of the worlds populates  are attracted to strong populist leaders who lead the right wing party or far right that the world is not only completely ruled by the right but are  autocratic that will cause the decline of democracy as  every country will become unfriendly to migrants and even their decision will involve the problems the climate change such as  ignoring the opinion from  scientists around the climate that will lead to future natural disaster and cancelling the funding for establishment which are important for progress use  such as America under Trump and the republic party once again removing America from the W.H.O which will last four years if a new president will try to reverse the order or be permanent and if it’s the permanent option, then will cause health problems to America citizens and will cause future pandemics as the health experts warned .

Anyway, the main point with the world shifting to right , it will lead to  the pre-WW2 era again where democracy is declining and authoritarianism is about to be normalized , but I think the cause of the problem is that both sides don’t understand each other which is why I think a centrist government with the opinion of both left and right are needed.

Because you see the left wings of the politics understand the equality of human beings especially both race and sex and even understand the problem of climate change which is why a green initiative is needed, but the problem is that they can’t deal with financial problems when they don’t understand about the working class, they put too much in diversity that conservatives begin to criticize them  and  they have trouble resolving  the recent conflicts around the world especially that they should have cut ties  with the authoritarian countries that disobeys human rights like with Americas association with Israel under Netanyahu who still continue their rampage attacking Palestinians during the recently ceasefire Gaza war.

The right wing side of politics understands the status quo and preserves order but lacks the understanding of human equality including migrants who are humans like us , doesn’t understand the causes of climate change and even the importance of various organizations like the WHO and they will be corrupted with so much power that they will try to rewrite the constitution, imprison the opposition, conquer territories illegally like with the war of Ukraine, China's wish is to conquer Taiwan and Trumps determination to conquer Greenland and attempt to make Canada as another state  and bring absolute power for themselves

 However, the cause of the problems is both views  don’t understand each other, both of their systems were flawed which is the reason why the political system has completely been divided, so I think a centrist government is needed to not only balance both the left and right wing of politics but to cut out the beliefs  from the far right and the far left and to end the political divide.

 If a centrist government is used around the world, it will balance both the left and right political views so that it will both understand the migrants, the diversity of both race and sex ,  understand the  climate change , resolve financial  problems , deciding or change the status quo and trying to resolve conflicts around the world and make people  no longer divide over politics and accept democracy similar to the yin and yang as in balance.

Sometimes, perhaps in the post global authoritarian era , I think a centrist government is needed for the whole world.

In the theater of geopolitics, where nations clash on trade, technology, and influence, one might naïvely believe that hard power—military might or economic leverage—is the ultimate weapon. But for the discerning observer, it has become evident that America wields a far more potent arsenal against China: the sorcery of statistics and the fine art of definition manipulation. These tools, honed to perfection, allow America to maintain its narrative dominance while conveniently reshaping reality to fit its preferred worldview.

Take, for instance, the miraculous elasticity of economic statistics. America, with its unparalleled ingenuity, has discovered how to make GDP figures, unemployment rates, and inflation data dance to the desired tune. Need to show growth? Revise the formula for calculating GDP. Want to downplay inflation? Exclude housing and energy costs from the "core" inflation rate. It’s a testament to the nation’s creativity that economic wellbeing can be conjured out of thin air with nothing more than a change in methodology. Meanwhile, China's growth figures—despite their consistency—are dismissed with a wave of the hand as "unreliable" or "manipulated." After all, the only acceptable magic in statistics is American magic.

Then there’s the mastery of definitions, a weapon as precise as it is devastating. When America defines itself, it is always the beacon of democracy, liberty, and human rights. When China does the same, it’s propaganda. Trade imbalances? When America imports more than it exports, it’s globalization at work; when China does the same, it’s predatory economics. Intellectual property disputes? America’s tech dominance is innovation; China’s success is theft. It’s a linguistic jiu-jitsu that ensures every move America makes is noble, while every move China makes is suspect.

Perhaps the most impressive feat of this definitional prowess is in the realm of global leadership. America, the self-appointed leader of the free world, defines global norms to its liking. International law is sacred—unless it applies to America itself. Free trade is essential—unless it threatens American industries. The rules-based order must be upheld—so long as America writes the rules. China, on the other hand, is accused of "not playing by the rules," which is another way of saying: "not playing by our rules."

Even in the realm of human rights, America’s rhetorical flexibility is unmatched. The U.S. can simultaneously criticize China’s domestic policies while ignoring its own issues with systemic inequality, mass incarceration, and a seemingly endless parade of foreign wars. The clever use of selective outrage ensures the moral high ground remains firmly in American hands, no matter how precarious the footing.

Of course, one cannot overlook the role of the media in amplifying these tools. American media outlets, armed with the same statistical wizardry and definitional gymnastics, diligently craft a narrative where America is always the protagonist and China the antagonist. Nuance is sacrificed at the altar of simplicity, ensuring that the audience never questions the moral superiority of the American position.

So, while China may invest in infrastructure, technology, and education, America has invested in something far more powerful: the ability to define reality itself. As long as the magic of statistics and the power of definitions remain in America’s arsenal, it can rest assured that it will always emerge victorious—at least in the narrative.

And isn’t that what truly matters?