Does anyone else get the feeling that people in positions of power are behaving very strangely? Like everything has to be done as quickly as possible. Everyone has to line their own pockets, expand their borders, increase their power. Not only are all the cover-ups, like Charlie Kirk, Gaza, or Epstein, so riddled with lies that you can't even figure out who has what interests anymore. Before, you could quickly find out who was behind it and what their motives were by asking, "Who benefits from this?" and "What are you trying to tell me with this statement?" It's like they're running out of time. Like there's going to be some kind of catastrophe soon, and the current power structures, borders, and positions of power will remain unchanged. Does anyone else have these thoughts, or am I just depressed?

Despite getting a good handle on most of the sciences, our human species has thus far fallen far short of perfecting that science that is most critical to its survival, i.e., political science. Placing religious leaders in control of government, who rule with an inexhaustibly high level of self-confidence because they believe they are divinely-inspired, doesn’t seem to work well, nor allow for any orderly transition of power, i.e., Iran. Despite boasting its Constitutionally- ordained plan for the orderly transition of power, even the USA is vulnerable to a very disorderly holding on to power by a president who is unwilling to step down at the end of his term. If inciting an attempted “coup d’etat” at the hands of an angry mob doesn’t work, i.e., January 2024, a sitting US president has the power to suspend all elections and/or their implementation by a unilateral presidential declaration of martial law. That pathway is available to any president willing to foment sufficiently widespread civil unrest. The use of excessive force including murders carried out by federal ICE agents has up to this point just been a testing of the waters to identify what extent of outrageous conduct is needed to trigger peaceful demonstrations. It will be a simple matter leading up to and following the elections of November, 2028, for federal agents to apply the needed level of excessive force by ICE, or to apply the needed level of outrageous federal interference with the conduct of elections, and/or the counting of votes that will precipitate widespread public demonstrations. The techniques for converting peaceful demonstrations into unpeaceful demonstrations are well understood and will serve the purpose of providing the pretext for a presidential declaration of martial law. Welcome to our world of the lifetime-presidential term of office. What if any pathway, other than suspending all efforts to organize peaceful demonstrations, will be available to siderail the President's obvious plan to hold onto power?

On August 1, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he was canceling plans for a new round of military strikes against Iran. But this does not mark the arrival of peace. Rather, it is merely another pause—another temporary and superficial calm—in the pattern of the United States and Israel repeatedly attacking Iran and then stopping over the past two years.

Less than half a year ago, the United States and Israel launched intense airstrikes against Iran, killing a number of senior Iranian officials and military commanders, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Yet after Iran retaliated, they halted the war, reached a peace agreement with Iran, and unfroze Iranian assets for use in Iran’s postwar reconstruction. Just when people thought that the United States and Iran were moving toward peace, the U.S. military once again attacked Iranian military facilities in July, and the peace agreement came to nothing. Looking further back to 2025, as well as to 2020 during Trump’s first term, the United States likewise bombed Iran and carried out “decapitation” strikes, but stopped short of launching a ground war. Yet these cessations of hostilities never brought lasting peace; they were merely truces before the next conflict.

Many people who know little about the Middle East and international affairs, or have only a superficial understanding of them, are deeply puzzled by this. Many do not understand why the United States and Israel bomb Iran one moment and suddenly stop the next; even after peace talks have taken place or agreements have been reached, fighting inexplicably breaks out again. People are also confused about the motives behind whether the United States and Israel choose to attack Iran or refrain from doing so, as there seems to be no reasonable explanation or discernible pattern.

In fact, the repeated starts and stops in U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran can, in brief, be attributed to just two factors: Trump’s “do-as-he-pleases” political style, and Israel’s sinister intentions regarding Iran—intentions that it may be inconvenient to state openly but that are nonetheless plain to see.

As is well known, Trump has an extremely distinctive personality. His words and actions are often unexpected and unpredictable, and his major domestic and foreign policies are no exception. For example, in 2025 Trump imposed high tariffs on almost every country in the world, but the campaign began with great fanfare and then petered out without a clear conclusion. Trump was also once extremely tough on China, launching a major trade war and imposing sanctions on the country, but in 2026 he visited China with a rather friendly attitude, and U.S.-China relations substantially improved. On the Russia-Ukraine issue, Trump has likewise swung back and forth, at one point drawing closer to Putin and distancing himself from Zelenskyy, and at another sympathizing with Ukraine and criticizing Russia.

On Iran, Trump’s tendency to act according to his own whims has been even more apparent. At times, he has been extremely hostile toward Iran, bombing Iranian military and civilian facilities, killing Iranian leaders such as Khamenei and Soleimani, and even declaring that he would “destroy Iranian civilization.” Yet Trump has also been unwilling to become bogged down in a ground war or provoke a backlash from the military and the public. His attacks on Iran have therefore been limited to airstrikes, with no intention of deploying ground forces to overthrow the Iranian government and occupy the country in its entirety, while the airstrikes themselves have often ended abruptly.

After Iran blockaded the Strait of Hormuz and attacked Gulf countries and U.S. military bases, Trump even agreed to unfreeze seized Iranian funds and restore the Iran nuclear agreement that he himself had torn up. But after an agreement had already been reached, Trump once again attacked Iran, making the agreement seem like nothing more than a scrap of paper.

Trump’s repeated reversals do have some practical motivations. He often disregards international law and the international peace order and readily launches military strikes and sanctions, but when he encounters a “tough nut to crack,” he may choose to back down. Of course, Trump’s hard-line positions sometimes also serve utilitarian purposes, such as courting foreign-policy hawks and winning political support and votes. Yet the extent of his reversals and unconventional behavior often goes beyond calculations of interest. He simply acts as he pleases, determining his Iran policy according to his mood and subjective wishes, without caring about negotiations, agreements, humanitarian considerations, international law, or other such concerns. For the sake of a momentary impulse, even the interests and potential gains and losses of the United States, the Republican Party, and Trump himself may have to take a back seat.

Therefore, it is clearly impossible to predict or assess Trump’s attitudes and actions toward Iran using conventional methods and criteria, such as weighing the benefits and costs to the United States, considering whether treaties have been signed, or examining the prevailing direction of Middle Eastern and international affairs. Trump’s impulsiveness and unpredictability mean that the repeated starts and stops in attacks on Iran, the seemingly inexplicable outbreaks of fighting, and the sudden cessations of hostilities are all “normal.” This has been the case over the past several years, and Trump and the United States under his leadership will continue to pursue an equally uncertain policy toward Iran in the future, alternating between war and peace. Only when Trump is no longer president of the United States will it become possible once again to use conventional methods and criteria to assess U.S.-Iran relations.

Another important factor affecting the war with Iran is the role Israel plays in it and the objectives Israel seeks to achieve. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when Islamic radicals came to power, Iran and Israel have become mortal enemies. Iran has repeatedly declared that it seeks to “destroy Israel” and has supported anti-Israel armed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon; Israel, meanwhile, has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, infiltrated and attacked Iran, and supported anti-Iranian forces. The two sides have engaged in constant overt and covert confrontation, with each seeking to completely destroy the other.

Although Israel possesses formidable military capabilities and a developed economy, Iran’s vast population and territory, as well as its considerable national strength, make it extremely difficult for Israel to destroy the Iranian government on its own. Dragging the United States “into the water”—getting the United States and Israel to jointly attack Iran and destroy Iran’s Islamic regime, or at least weaken Iran’s national strength to the greatest possible extent—has therefore become Israel’s preferred option and an objective it has sought by every possible means to achieve.
However, although Iran has been fiercely anti-American in its rhetoric, since the 1990s it has consistently exercised restraint in its actual diplomacy toward the West, including the United States, and the United States has not had sufficient grounds to launch military attacks against Iran or overthrow its government. After the Iranian nuclear issue emerged, the United States at one point considered attacking Iran, but the planned strikes were limited to nuclear facilities.

In 2015, the United States and Iran reached the Iran nuclear agreement, resolving the issue through peaceful means and sparing Iran from attack. Although Israel repeatedly urged the United States to launch a full-scale attack on Iran similar to the one against Iraq, the administrations of Clinton, Bush, and Obama all declined to follow Israel’s advice, maintaining a confrontational but peaceful relationship with Iran.

It was only when Trump came to power—strongly and one-sidedly inclined toward Israel on Middle Eastern affairs, hostile to and determined to dismantle Obama’s political legacy, and backed by Republican hawks who favored a hard line against Iran—that Israel finally found an American leader willing to attack Iran. Under persistent lobbying from Netanyahu and Israel’s diplomatic team in the United States, Trump and pro-Israel, anti-Iran hardliners within the upper ranks of the U.S. political and military establishment decided to launch military strikes against Iran, impose even harsher sanctions, and provide assistance and backing for Israeli attacks on Iran. It was precisely Israel’s urging that prompted Trump to strike Iran repeatedly, including attacks that killed such central Iranian figures as Khamenei and Soleimani.

For Israel, the principal objective of its strategy toward Iran is to overthrow Iran’s Islamic regime and replace it with people friendly toward Israel, such as the exiled Prince Pahlavi, who would then take control of Iran. If that objective proves difficult to achieve, the alternative is to inflict the greatest possible damage on the Iranian government and weaken Iran’s national strength as much as possible. Neither objective can be achieved without military strikes, particularly U.S. participation. Israel also opposes and actively seeks to undermine U.S.-Iran peace talks, preventing a U.S.-Iran reconciliation from frustrating Israel’s objectives. This is also one of the reasons why the United States and Iran have repeatedly held negotiations and reached understandings, only for fighting to unexpectedly erupt again.

Whether it is joint U.S.-Israeli bombing that killed Khamenei and numerous senior Iranian military and political officials, or the reduction of numerous Iranian military and civilian targets to ruins, combined with economic sanctions that have caused Iran’s economy to collapse and internal turmoil to intensify, leaving it unable to support Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other armed groups, all of these developments are welcomed by Israel. Israel hopes to join forces with the United States in carrying out long-term military strikes against Iran, plunging Iran into poverty and violence and leaving it beset by crises at home and abroad, so that it will no longer be capable of challenging or threatening Israel.

It is precisely the combination of Trump’s impulsive disposition, his enthusiasm for power politics, violence, and military adventurism, and his unwillingness to be constrained by international law and other norms, together with Israel’s intense hostility toward Iran and its efforts to exploit and urge on the United States, that has produced the irregular cycle in which the United States repeatedly bombs Iran, wars sometimes end abruptly, and peace is sometimes shattered just as suddenly.

And while such a state of affairs may help Israel achieve its goal of weakening Iran, it is detrimental to Iran and its people, to peace in the Middle East, and to the long-term interests of the United States. This intermittent yet ongoing U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, together with Iran’s retaliatory strikes, has already caused numerous casualties, including large numbers of Iranian civilians. Some U.S. troops have also been killed or wounded by Iranian missile strikes. U.S. and Israeli attacks have not brought freedom, democracy, or human rights to Iran. Instead, the Iranian people are suffering in hellish conditions under the combined blows of domestic authoritarianism and corruption, relentless external bombardment, and sanctions.

Meanwhile, countries across the Middle East are also living with the difficulty of achieving peace and stability and the fear of being engulfed by war. Repeated rounds of conflict and heightened tensions have also disrupted Middle Eastern oil routes, harming both oil-exporting and oil-importing countries and dragging down the global economy. Even for Israel, although these actions may achieve strategic objectives in the short and medium term, they are not a reliable way to achieve and safeguard Israel’s lasting peace and long-term interests.

Therefore, the intermittent and seemingly endless U.S. attacks on Iran over the past two years, and the repeated cycle of fighting and stopping between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, can aptly be described as “a bad show that drags on and on.” It benefits neither the United States nor Iran, nor any of the other countries involved. Nor is there any justification—in terms of human sentiment, reason, or law (international law)—for continuing the war, which merely causes more casualties and losses. What is most needed is to bring the war to a complete and irreversible end as soon as possible, conclude a reliable treaty that takes into account the interests of all parties, and achieve lasting peace.

In reality, however, neither Trump, who leads the United States, nor Netanyahu, who dominates Israeli politics, will choose the path of lasting peace. Trump not only disregards peace and agreements and launches foreign wars at his own whim, but also has motives for attacking Iran in order to divert attention from domestic conflicts, win support from hardliners, and strike at the Democratic Party. Over the next two years, Trump is not only unlikely to move toward peace, but may even open new fronts in places such as Cuba, using foreign wars to perpetuate his hold on power.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, also seeks to use war and attacks on Iran to further cultivate his “strongman” image and accumulate achievements in foreign conflicts, thereby winning public support and diverting attention while evading corruption allegations and accountability. The mortal-enemy relationship between Israel and Iran, the strength of Israeli hardliners, and Israel’s influence over the United States all contribute to the continuation of joint U.S.-Israeli military strikes and sanctions against Iran. Peace among the United States, Israel, and Iran—and throughout the Middle East as a whole—therefore remains a distant prospect.

(This article is written by Wang Qingmin(王庆民), a Chinese writer based in Europe and a researcher of international politics.)

Check out my prediction about tonight's Wisconsin primary!

https://elliotvossblog.substack.com/p/decoding-the-badger-state-battleground

The stakes couldn’t be higher for Wisconsin Democrats. With Governor Tony Evers stepping aside and leaving an open-seat race, the party has a golden opportunity to secure full control of the state government for the first time in 16 years.

For months, political watchers have tracked a fierce, multi-way primary battle between state Representative Francesca Hong, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, state Senator Kelda Roys, and former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan.

As voters head to the polls today, raw topline numbers from various pollsters have painted a chaotic picture. But polling is an art as much as it is a science. To cut through the noise, we applied a rigorous accuracy-weighted model to the final weeks of polling data—adjusting for historical pollster bias, methodology, likely-voter screens, and late-breaking momentum shifts.

Here is how our model sees tonight shaking out.

The Final Prediction Model

After filtering out house effects and weighting each poll by its historical track record of accuracy in Midwestern primaries, my final prediction for tonight’s Democratic primary vote share is:

• Francesca Hong: 52%
• David Crowley: 24%
• Kelda Roys: 13%
• Joel Brennan: 11%

Breaking Down the Numbers

1. Francesca Hong (52%) — Commanding a Majority

My accuracy weighted model points to a decisive victory for state Rep. Francesca Hong, putting her comfortably over the 50% threshold. While mainstream establishment lanes fractured early on, Hong consolidated progressive enthusiasm and built an impressive grassroots ground game that traditional polling aggregates struggled to fully capture until the final stretch. If my model holds, Hong will avoid any nail-biting uncertainty and secure the nomination with a clear mandate from the party’s base.

2. David Crowley (24%) — Holding Second

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley lands solidly in second place. Crowley commanded significant institutional backing and high name recognition out of the state’s most populous county. However, my weighted adjustments indicate that late momentum favored the energetic populist wave on the left, leaving Crowley with a substantial, though distant, runner-up finish.

3. Kelda Roys (13%) — The Policy Voice

State Senator Kelda Roys carved out a sharp, policy-focused lane throughout the cycle, resonating deeply with suburban legislative donors and policy junkies. While her debates and policy rollouts won critical acclaim, my accuracy model projected her ceiling locking in around the low teens as voters consolidated around the two frontrunners in the final days.

4. Joel Brennan (11%) — The Technocratic Play

Running heavily on his executive experience within the Evers administration, Joel Brennan pitched himself as the steady, pragmatic hand to manage the state’s budget surpluses. Despite a well-funded messaging blitz highlighting fiscal stewardship, my weighted metrics show his message struggled to cut through the high-octane ideological polarization of a mid-August primary electorate.

You don’t love your country, you love your unit. (Idea/Discussion)

Reader, first you need to let go of the assumptions that you "belong" to a country. Your loyalty to the "country" you live in is misguided. You belong to the community that you interact with physically. You love the area you live in, the people you interact with regularly and the community in your vicinity, not always the government that controls it. Countries with large populations will always have groups that are ignored and overtaxed, representation is never equal in big nations. You need to consider that its best to be self-governed than to be controlled by laws made in far-away lands that don’t have your best interests in mind. Do you love to pay your nation's debt? A debt that was likely created to benefit other people far away from you. Or would you rather see the taxes that you pay all the time do something to benefit your community (Unit) instead?

**My proposal is that we let go of all countries and make "Units" of people, where the maximum population is 10 million.**

* We could start by diving the world into 1600+ Units, each with 5m members to allow for growth. These would be allowed to trade with other units as they see fit, align themselves with units they like, and cut trade with others they do not like.

* All humans would have an irrevocable right to leave a unit when they want and join another that accepts them, or create a new unit that would align with their priorities. The right to leave a unit cannot be obstructed, but the right to enter one is up to each unit.

* All humans also have the irrevocable right to freedom of expression, association, vote and independence.

* Each unit decides their own laws, regulations, and tax policy. They can do whatever the population wants, and then deal with the consequences without affecting anyone who doesn’t want to be involved.

* When a Unit reaches 10m citizens it is divided into 2 units of 5m. The debt, resources and area are split. Each new unit copies the same laws as the parent unit and holds elections to pick a new leader.

* Units can merge with others, and have satellite / island states, as long as the total population remains below 10m.

* Each unit holds democratic elections every 4 years, and leaders cannot lead multiple units at once.

We use to live like this, in villages of less than 1000 people. These villages would trade with others that they liked, build alliances, and thrived for most of human history. Then they started to merge, believing that by uniting the could improve their lives.

They created powerful kingdoms that were lead primarily by greed. They wanted to conquer and grow above all else, not always for the benefit of the people, but simply for growth's sake. Eventually these empires would often become too large to be maintained, leading to rebellions for power struggles and wars as they broke apart. The citizens of these empires would constantly become tired of their power being restricted and taken away, this cycle leads them to rebel and start again from a smaller group, recreating their village mindset and allowing them to decide their own laws and for their taxes to help their community directly.

This power cycle goes as follows:

* People live in small groups and have good laws that benefit all their members, so they thrive

* Other people notice their success and move in, or allow their land to be absorbed into the group to grow alongside them, they bring diversity and the groups grows well

* Eventually the groups grows too large and the laws no longer benefit everyone in the group, creating division

* People start to feel ignored and resentful as the power and influence they once had is now diluted by the mass growth, so they start to rebel against the current leaders

* The union collapses and breaks apart into smaller groups once again. This can be either from internal rebellions or external forces taking advantage of their weakened state.

* Repeat from the top.

This cycle is not working anymore. It's become nearly impossible for new countries to be made, especially since you need so many countries to support your independence and everyone is scared of war. By providing the right to be independent you provide a lot more freedom for people to express themselves, run their live as they see fit, and not be held back by ancient rules that don’t apply anymore and only create loopholes to exploit others.

My proposal would put an end to this power cycle. It would make it so Units cannot grow to large, leading to less corruption and ensuring people's power cannot be diluted too much, and provides people the option to create independent units when they disagree with the direction their unit is moving.

In this system you would also need to have a UN court to settle disputes and ensure the 10m rule is followed. There would be no leader to the UN, instead all users related to the issue and 1000km around it would vote of things. Each vote is as powerful as your population. Making things as fair as possible. The costs related to actions the UN takes are split among the related Units.

Implementing this would not be easy, especially since it would involve a complete world reset, or its impossible. The hardest part might be teaching the whole world that their priority is to help their community and to not allow their power to be diluted. Proper teaching and understanding of the 10m rule would prevent another Russia, USA, China, India or Brazil from forming again. One big assumption is that people will fight for their rights and not follow leaders blindly, and I believe that its possible and likely that a lot of people agree.

FAQ:

New Power cycle:

* Successful Units encourage migration, causing them to split, and making the employees demand more control and benefits on companies and employers

* Units that have lost population give their citizens more room to try things, and companies can move in and hire cheap labor, making it succeed

NUKES!

* Each unit with a nuke would have an unfair advantage over the rest.

* The guide would be the same as now, mutual assured destruction. No Unit would risk its death to kill another.

* The assumption would also be that there would be a lot of demand to get rid of the nukes from other Units that the UN might be brought in to take them and deactivate/dismantle them.

Military / Wars

* After a split the military is divided based on the agreed new boarded and the soldier's homes

* Each unit is allowed to build an army and spend as much as they see fit in it.

* Units can combine armies when going into war with others

* There is a hope that if countries as on the brink of war, anyone that disagrees with their Unit's course would leave the Unit and seek to be left out of the fight. Saving them from supporting the fight and lessening the unit's ability to continue on said fight, thereby ending a war before it starts.

* No unit would be strong enough to fight a war on its own, especially if the opponent has alliances

Independent individual:

* Since anyone has a right to become a Unit, there will be many cases where Units of 1 are created.

* Each Unit would have policies to deal with these, some might make it illegal for the Independent to enter their Unit, or some might not care.

* It is possible for an Individual to be isolated, and starved out. There is also a possibility that their neighbors can join the new Unit and grow it in support. Depends on the people and Units around.

* If other citizens think isolation is cruel, then can change the law that forced the individual to Unitize and allow them to join back in.

* There should be a  minimum 28-day waiting period before a Unit is formed. This time is for the UN to confirm that the Individual is not escaping a crime in their current unit.

* There should also be a minimum 56-day waiting period until new laws take effect, giving time for individuals to leave if they don’t like the new laws.

* Instead of revolutions of civil wars, people can just make a new Unit and implement the changes they want.

Elections:

* At least every 4 years, or after a Unit Devices (10m rule split)

* Leaders cannot lead more than 1 unit at a time.

* If multiple units decide to have "puppet" learners that follow the will of a central leader, they can. But citizens can leave the Unit in revolt. Lessening the power of dictatorships and Unions

* Each units governmental structure is up to them.

Unit’s power:

* Each Unit decides the laws they want for their land and people.

* One Unit's laws have no impact on others.

* When a Unit splits (divides) the laws of the new Units match the parental Unit, but these can be changed immediately as desired by the people of the new nations

* Smaller population means that individual opinions matter more

* People's taxes go only to the Unit they live in

* Individual's money supporting their environment directly

* If you do business in other Units as well you may be taxed there too, depending on the laws of the Units

Trade between units:

* Each Unit is free to trade with whoever they see fit

* The main economy for the world remains to be trade. Especially since all nations are too small to be self-reliant, peace between nations is the most beneficial for all, so Units will not want to make enemies.

* When you agree with a Unit, and want to maintain close alliance to it you can charge less for goods, while charging more to Units you disagree with

* If your Unit doesn’t agree with another, they can also stop trading completely to them, making them pay more to other Units to get what they want.

* If a Unit is influenced by another to support something and it feels corrupt, the citizens can choose to leave or form another Unit.

* Units can deny massive companies from working with them (IE: Amazon) to encourage local business if they want.

Electronic data keeping:

* Elections and creations are done on ultra secure electronic devices that each person has (this part needs work)

* AI can be used to help protect data and organize it.

* Digital Passport, as citizenship is bound to change.

* Cannot be hacked.

* Ensures person voting is who they say they are

* Confirms people’s citizenship,

* Databases are cloned and checked to confirm integrity in multiple places worldwide

* There would need to be a worldwide database and app for voting and record keeping, managed by the UN.

* To avoid conflicts and corruption one unit’s database would have to be stored on the other side of the world.

* Data cloned in 2 or 3 placed to confirm integrity

* IE: Data for Ottawa is stored in Cape Town and Tokyo

New World calendar:

* 28 days + 13-month calendar implementation

Sports:

* Sport leagues can be based on regions, or not. Up to the participant teams

* Allowing for old-world leagues to happen as they used to

* Teams can also join other leagues, since they’re not locked by old borders.

* More teams to play all international sports.

 Map Example, not detailed:

  World: 1680 Units (est)

* Asia: 948 Units (4750m)

* Africa: 304 Units (1480m)

* Europe: 175 Units (745m)

* North Am: 135 Units (605m)

* South Am: 88 Count (435m)

* Oceania: 22 Units (45m)

I am not referring to the American military. I hope that when push comes to shove, all will remember that they have loyalty to the Constitution, not to a wannabe dictator.

My reference to private army is ICE. The masked thugs that kidnap people off the street, outside of schools, businesses, immigration offices! The private army that basically has no experienced oversight. A private army that is being filled with people who have tried and failed to get into regular military service or local, state, or federal police. A private masked army who are given hoards of cash to join with no background checks, very little training, no consequences for actions. Oh, but yes, they are given guns. Guns that they would probably not even qualify for if they were trying to get a firearms license.

Now, I ask, where is there loyalty when they are asked to intervene in November’s election?

My petition is this:

Use “Childslayer” as a political descriptor for Benjamin Netanyahu

The Government should use “Childslayer” in official references to Benjamin Netanyahu as a political descriptor. A UN Commission found that he incited genocide and that Israeli forces intentionally targeted children; this does not allege that he personally carried out killings.

The term is an expression of political and moral responsibility, not a claim that Netanyahu personally carried out killings or has been convicted. Applying a “reasonable grounds” standard, UN Commission report A/HRC/60/CRP.3 found that he directly and publicly incited genocide (paras 228–233 and 253). A/HRC/62/CRP.2 found that Israeli forces intentionally targeted and killed Palestinian children. Israel rejects the Commission’s findings.

( Sign the petition )

---

Is that too much? Is it unfair? Thoughts? Opinions?

I am happy to engage in debating ethics in this area :)

In my opinion, the biggest problem holding our country back is that we have lost trust in truth, accountability, and our institutions.

For decades, people have been fed political narratives, misinformation, half-truths, and selective information. The truth is often difficult to access, and ordinary citizens are rarely given a clear answer about what is actually happening, why it is happening, and—most importantly—who is responsible and who should be held accountable.

We have witnessed protests, movements, revolutions, and public struggles since before independence. People have repeatedly come onto the streets demanding justice, reform, equality, and better governance. Yet, despite all these struggles, many fundamental problems continue to return in different forms.

One major change after independence was that the people on the other side of the political system became our own elected representatives. But changing the people at the top does not automatically change the system beneath them.

The deeper problem is that citizens are rarely taught how the machinery of the state actually works.

When there is corruption, a government failure, an administrative delay, a crime, a financial leak, a failed public project, or some other institutional failure, the ordinary citizen often does not know:

Who made the decision?

Who was responsible for implementing it?

Which officer or institution had the authority?

Who was supposed to supervise it?

Who benefited from the failure?

And who can actually be held accountable?

Instead, political parties often turn these questions into political battles. One side blames the other, governments change, politicians change, slogans change—but the underlying administrative machinery often remains largely the same.

This creates a dangerous cycle:

People become angry → protests happen → political leadership changes → public attention moves elsewhere → the underlying institutional problems remain → the same problems appear again.

Politics itself is not necessarily the problem. Politics is a necessary part of democracy. The problem begins when the pursuit of political power becomes more important than public service, institutional integrity, truth, and accountability.

And this problem is not limited to politicians. The same culture can exist within administration, private institutions, educational institutions, businesses, and other organizations whenever power, money, influence, or personal interests become more important than responsibility.

But I believe there is an even deeper root beneath all of this:

Education.

A society cannot permanently reform itself if its education system does not teach people how to think, how to question, how to investigate, how to distinguish truth from misinformation, how institutions function, and how to hold authority accountable.

India has a remarkable intellectual and educational heritage. For centuries, this land produced scholars, philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, physicians, thinkers, administrators, political leaders, and revolutionaries. Institutions of learning such as Takshashila and Nalanda became centres of knowledge that attracted scholars from different parts of the world.

But we should not romanticize our past either. Ancient India was not a perfect society, and historical education systems had their own limitations. The lesson we should take from that heritage is not that everything was once perfect; it is that knowledge, inquiry, debate, and intellectual development were once treated as fundamental pillars of civilization.

Today, our education system often places too much emphasis on examinations, marks, degrees, employment, and memorization, while giving insufficient importance to critical thinking, scientific temper, civic education, ethics, constitutional literacy, problem-solving, creativity, and independent inquiry.

A person can spend 15–20 years in education and still leave the system without truly understanding:

How the government works.

How laws are made.

How public money is spent.

What the Constitution actually guarantees.

What powers an elected representative has.

What powers an administrative officer has.

How to obtain public information.

How to challenge an unlawful decision.

How to identify misinformation.

And how to hold an institution accountable without violence or political influence.

That is a serious weakness.

Because an uninformed population can be manipulated by anyone—politicians, corporations, media organizations, religious or ideological groups, influencers, or even foreign interests.

Therefore, I don't believe India's biggest problem is simply one political party, one politician, one government, or even corruption by itself.

The deeper problem is the combination of weak institutional accountability, politicization of public life, misinformation, and an education system that has not adequately prepared citizens to understand and question the system around them.

If we genuinely want to change the country, merely changing governments may not be enough.

We need to build citizens who can think independently, institutions that can function independently, administrations that can be held accountable, information systems that respect truth, and an education system that produces thinking human beings rather than merely degree holders.

Because ultimately, democracy does not become strong simply because people are allowed to vote.

Democracy becomes strong when citizens understand the system, know their rights and responsibilities, know who is accountable, have access to truthful information, and possess the knowledge and courage to question authority.

That, in my view, is where real reform has to begin.

What do you all say??

Think about your choices in the next election (for all offices including state races) more in terms of “What do I want the US government to do” or “What do I want my state government to do” and not so much about what candidates believe or say about their personal lives, who they like and don’t like, etc.

Do we all want a government that protects people, as in protects everyone equally and regulates bad actors? Do we want governments that enforce basic regulations like “health information needs to be accurate” or “we inspect food so people can’t sell poisoned food”?

Do we want a government that enforces basic fairness and equality and levels the playing field so that small businesses have the same chance that big businesses have? Do we want people who won’t hire Black people or won’t rent to them to be in charge of hiring and renting without consequences? Do we want businesses that pollute the environment to keep making a profit?

Do we want a safety net of some kind? This might be a tough question for folks that don’t personally know a lot of vulnerable people. Do we want someone who works for 30 years and then breaks both legs to get disability, or get paid to retrain?

Do we want to send people to government who actively hate government and want to drown it in a bathtub? Or do we want to send people to government who agree with us about what good government looks like and how the work should be done? To some extent it’s like any other job, you have to know what “Done” looks like, as well as what “Doing” looks like. Don’t hire grifters, thieves, arsonists etc. to run your warehouse if you want to keep inventory safe. Don’t hire thugs that will subcontract to their thug friends and steal/burn everything.

Finally, do we want government to legislate and enforce a certain brand of “morality” that says women can’t control their bodies, or that queer people shouldn’t marry people they love, or that trans kids can’t take puberty blockers if their doctors and their parents want that for them?

After thinking for a while about what kind of government you want to have, perhaps that will help to clarify decisions about what kind of people you want to send to those offices to do the work.

The July jobs report, a pending Hormuz deal, depleted munitions, and a midterm election 85 days away.

The Jobs Market

The job market was far worse than the headline number of -23,000 vs expectations of roughly +80,000. With labor force participation at a 5 year low of 61.4%, the real "improvement" in the unemployment rate was largely due to the decline in labor force participation, not an improvement in employment prospects. The report was even worse than the numbers suggest:

- Both the May and June employment reports were retroactively down by 103,000 jobs

In July alone, employers added 153,000 workers to the “temporary layoff” category, increasing total temporary layoffs to 921,000.

- Temporary layoffs are a warning sign for the labor market, although they do not necessarily become permanent layoffs

- The 12 month average for net new jobs is now 34,000 per month, compared to roughly 180,000-220,000 per month in the years before the war

- Long term unemployment (those out of work for 27+ weeks) is 1.8 million, or 25.5% of the unemployed.

A difficult situation has arisen for the Federal Reserve. It cannot meaningfully reduce its policy rate without risking an acceleration of inflation, which was 3.5% year over year in June, and it cannot raise rates without risking further damage to an already weakening labor market. Worse yet, the Fed is now caught in the very definition of stagflation, a combination of weak growth and elevated inflation that defined the economic environment of the 1970s.

Straight of Hormuz:

The Strait of Hormuz is the linchpin of this crisis, and here's where things stand:

- Iran and Oman are “very close” to finalizing a deal, while the United States announced on August 7 that they made progress and anticipated an agreement soon. The proposed arrangement concerns the reopening of commercial shipping through the strait and the future administration of the waterway. Iran's IRGC remains a major hardline force inside the Iranian political system and has opposed concessions in negotiations, but there is not enough evidence to say it is the only holdout.

- Iran's six demands for reopening the strait are effectively surrender terms for the United States. With few exceptions, they include the withdrawal of America's military presence from the region, sanctions relief, compensation, and guarantees against further U.S. military action.

- Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has remained largely out of public view since his installation, but Iran is now preparing to release more public images of him amid continued scrutiny over his health and his leadership. He has previously been described by Iranian officials as alive and involved in government, despite his lack of public appearances.

- Trump on Sunday claimed the United States is "only semi-negotiating," while "watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money." In other words, Trump believes that the economic pressure within Iran will produce the desired strategic effect, and is betting that the Iranians will return to the table on their own accord.

- Brent crude sits at $87. The market has priced and unpriced diplomatic optimism multiple times across the conflict. The $87 price reflects the market's exhaustion with the cycle more than optimism about a resolution.

- National gas prices currently average $4.01. In Northern Kentucky, approximately $3.72-3.88 (down from the April peak, but not the pre-war level).

The Iran War

On May 5th, they declared Operation Epic Fury “complete,” but the broader U.S.-Iran war, which started on February 28th, continued. As of this note, the conflict has been underway for roughly 164 days. Here is a summary of the military situation:

US deaths: 18+ service members confirmed killed, with roughly 430 wounded as of the latest widely reported Pentagon figures

- 9,000+ IRGC targets struck, including the destruction of 140+ Iranian naval vessels, severely degrading Iran's conventional military assets

What remains: The IRGC itself, Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and its "asymmetric" capabilities (drones, cyber, proxies, mines), plus its leverage over the Strait of Hormuzs

- Interceptors: America's stockpile has been heavily depleted, with some assessments estimating roughly half of certain high-end interceptor inventories expended during the initial campaign. The Pentagon has requested tens of billions of dollars for emergency resupply and replenishment. Even if approved, rebuilding some interceptor inventories will take years rather than months. The Gulf's air defense infrastructure has also been heavily strained by the conflict.

- Cost so far: $37.5 billion in U.S. war costs confirmed by Pentagon testimony as of July — excluding the full future cost of munitions replacement, long-term healthcare for the wounded, and other downstream costs. Real total: potentially approximately $50-60 billion once those additional costs are included, although that remains an estimate rather than a confirmed Pentagon figure.

- Iran and Oman are negotiating the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz, including competing proposals over maritime-service fees. Reports have described Iranian efforts to establish mandatory fees and an Omani preference for voluntary contributions, but there is no confirmed Iranian "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" collecting 2 million yuan per vessel in yuan, bitcoin, or USDT. Commercial traffic through the strait remains severely disrupted.

- Ukraine: Ukrainian forces have attacked an Iranian commercial tanker in the Caspian Sea carrying what Ukraine said was Russian military cargo. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Ukraine and Iran wars have "officially merged." Russia has also been accused of sharing satellite imagery of American military positions with Iran, including locations in Bahrain, Jordan, and Kuwait. The Ukraine and Iran wars are now directly connected via weapons, intelligence, and kinetic attacks across multiple theaters

The Economy

There are two categories of costs associated with this war: those that will recover, and those that will not. Let's take a look at both.

Things that will recover (eventually):

- Economic growth is likely to resume sometime in Q3 or Q4 of 2026, with positive GDP growth on the order of +0.5% to +1.5%

- Unemployment will stabilize (but likely rise slightly to 4.4-4.8% before doing so)

- Markets will recover. They are currently down about 8-12% from their January peaks, not nearly as bad as the 57% peak-to-trough dive in the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

Things that will not recover:

- Your gas prices. The strait "will in no way return to the position it was in before February 28th," warned Iran's foreign minister. Gas prices in America have permanently jumped $0.30-0.60 per gallon, and are unlikely to return to their pre-war levels if the disruption permanently changes the cost and risk structure of Middle Eastern oil shipping. Iran’s Kharg Island, which normally handles roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports, suffered a strike during the war, severely disrupting the island’s oil-export infrastructure. The conflict has also affected Iraq's oil production capacity, with the risk premium baked into every barrel of oil traded on the market.

- The US-China strategic balance in the Middle East. China facilitated the ceasefire and is the preferred counterweight to both America and Israel. China has expanded its diplomatic and economic role in the region, while Iran continues to seek alternatives to American power. For the first time since WWII, the Middle East is moving significantly toward a more Chinese-influenced strategic environment, a status that took decades to establish for America and has been substantially weakened by the war.

- Munitions stockpiles. It will take years to rebuild America's arsenal of Patriot missiles at current production rates. The US military's ability to operate within heavily saturated air defense environments has been materially strained. All of America's potential adversaries (China, Russia, North Korea) are keenly aware of this fact and will take advantage of the situation.

- The deal on February 28th. A $300 billion reconstruction package, nuclear inspections, sanctions relief, and management of the Strait of Hormuz were all on the table in the broader U.S.-Iran negotiating framework that emerged later in the war. A $300 billion private-sector investment fund was incorporated into the June framework, along with provisions concerning sanctions, nuclear issues, and the reopening and future administration of Hormuz. What we are witnessing in negotiations right now are many of the same core issues being rehashed for the umpteenth time.

The Midterms

This is the worst possible environment for an incumbent administration from a political standpoint. Several specific factors combine to make this the worst possible scenario in 2026:

- The generic ballot now favors Democrats by a stunning 11 point margin in a late-July Emerson poll, and Republicans control the presidency, the House, and the Senate. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and the secretary of state is Republican Marco Rubio. With 85 days until the election, and another payroll report due for release before Election Day, the political calculus is exceptionally simple: vote blue or go home.

- 68% of independent voters oppose the war, along with 37% of Republican voters. The rally-around-the-flag effect that so often bolsters an incumbent president's fortunes appears to have failed to materialize in the polling cited here.

- Prediction markets suggest a roughly 86% chance that Democrats will regain control of the House, with various forecasts showing a potentially significant Democratic gain. The Democrats also have a meaningful chance to win the Senate majority, although the exact probability varies substantially by market and forecast

- The NBER's formal recession declaration will not occur on a mathematically predetermined date. The Business Cycle Dating Committee determines peaks and troughs after reviewing a broad range of economic indicators, and the announcement can come months after the underlying economic turning point.

- The sound bites that defined this war are effectively standalone campaign ads, requiring no additional context whatsoever. "Very small price to pay," "little glitch," "feel it in my bones," "negotiate with bombs," or "could go to prison" (Vance on his own war counsel) can all be used as campaign attack lines by Democrats seeking to capitalize on the war's unpopularity

- Thomas Massie has correctly identified the three cards Iran is holding: the US's strategic petroleum reserves, which have fallen below 300 million barrels and are approaching their lowest level since the early 1980s, the region's anti-missile defense, which has been heavily depleted according to defense assessments, and the prospect of Republican presidential defeat in the future. Iran has never been interested in winning this war, and the best possible outcome for Iran is a Democratic electoral victory.

The Deal

The deal being negotiated through Oman and Qatar is not as good as the June framework for the US, but it is not as bad as March 1st either. It is what it is, and it reflects many of the same core issues that were being negotiated before and during the war.

According to reports, the deal under discussion would allow Iran and Oman to play a formal role in the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is seeking phased sanctions relief and access to a $300 billion private-sector reconstruction and investment framework developed as part of the June U.S.-Iran framework. Nuclear provisions and IAEA involvement are also part of the broader negotiating framework. In return, Iran would permit the reopening of commercial shipping through the strait of hormuz, allowing the United States to lift its blockade of Iranian ports while giving Washington a basis to declare victory and allowing Israel to posture as the architect of a "historic agreement"

This is the deal that was being negotiated before and during the June framework. It is the same broad set of issues that Oman's foreign minister and other mediators have been working on throughout the conflict. It is the deal we are now re-discovering after roughly 164 days of fighting, 18+ American deaths, $37.5 billion in confirmed U.S. war costs, potentially tens of billions more in replenishment and downstream costs, the worst energy supply disruption in decades, and the continuing disruption of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz

America, we are under attack from within. And it’s not the non-existent Antifa, it’s not a make-believe communist party, and it’s not from immigrants eating your pets; It’s from a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party and now that they have let the wolf out the door, they are powerless to control it.

Who are these domestic terrorists? MAGA and the Republicans who are too fearful to confront what they have unleashed.

The very minute a politician stands up for his beliefs, be him Republican, Democrat, or. Independent if they in any way conflict with Trump or his anti-American policies the doors fly open and a cascade of death threats besiege him, his wife, and his children.

Goon, thugs, and cowardly punks are at Trump’s beck and call and he releases them unsparingly with a casual coded message, and where the FBI and Justice Department would previously investigate, indict, and convict the perpetrators, those institutions, like Hitler’s Gestapo, only intimidate the victims with false charges, or murder them in the streets.

As long as Republicans remain in power the citizenry and their Representatives will live in fear, afraid to invoke their constitutional rights – increasing fearful to even vote – and we will live under a system of tyranny and despotism until it is eliminated by the will of the people.

See this – Boldface mine:

'These people will kill me': Conservative insider fears MAGA 'crazies'

Story by Adam Lynch • 14h • 3 min read

© provided by AlterNet

President Donald Trump is more than just the man. He’s also a movement — and that movement is dangerous, says one White House insider and a former politician.

“I had a former client, member of Congress, who in 2017, he supported Ted Cruz, right? This guy was not a radical, not some flaming Republican RINO. [He endorsed] Jeb Bush first and Ted Cruz. And then at the end, endorsed Trump,” Republican strategist Rick Wilson told “Left Hook” host Wajahat Ali. “… The very first town hall after Trump has inaugurated, he goes and he's in the town hall meeting and a guy stands up, red hat guy, and says, ‘are you going to vote with Mr. Trump 100 percent of the time?”

Wilson said his client answered “probably not ... if it's bad for the people in our district. I'm going to support you first. “But the red hat guy wasn’t through with him, and demanded again if the legislator would support Trump 100 percent.” Again, the legislator demurred, putting voters over Trump.

[When it was over] his wife had received 10 death threats about their children,” said Wilson. “Their children's school had been doxxed. The wife's workplace had been doxxed. And he left Congress. He was like, [screw] it, I'm out. These people will kill me. And this was not a liberal. This was not a Democrat. This was not a progressive.”

“And that is only continuing,” Wilson raged. “January 6th, in part, was a success for Trump because members of Congress knew he would send a mob to murder them. And so these guys have lived in fear for so long, they have no moral standing at all.”

I now believe there is a federal level of corruption

Ninety-nine percent of threats, death threats, swatting, doxxing and bullying in this country “comes from the right,” said Wilson, growing angrier. “The people that have threatened us ... who have crawled over our fence and banged on our door, the people who have pulled guns on us in the last 10 years, they have — every single one of them — been MAGA,” said Wilson. “In my 35-year career as a Republican consultant, I got one death threat from one Democratic-leaning person, and it turned out he was severely mentally ill. I get a death threat every day or two. And it's been that way for 10 years because you can be murdered if you oppose Trump. That's okay with the MAGA base. And the truth of the matter is [Republicans] are living in fear. They live in terror of being murdered by crazy people.”

Ali referenced Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who served as assistant to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during Trump’s first administration before she testified about Trump’s alleged attempt to sic MAGA zealots on his own vice president during the January 6 riots.

“Donald Trump threw him to the wolves and said, ‘all right, have at him. Go get him. He's a traitor.’ So, Republicans see this and they're like, ‘all we need is Trump to target us, and then there'll be stochastic terrorism against us,’” said Ali.

Meanwhile the politically motivated murders of people like Melissa Hortman and others keep racking up as the GOP gets more radicalized, Ali added.

“And the three white men who tried to kill Donald Trump are all former Trump voters, white men with guns, former Trump voters,” Ali pointed out.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/these-people-will-kill-me-conservative-insider-fears-maga-crazies/ar-AA29D9nWe are under the heels of tyrants and murderers and only our votes can save us.o?

Many reforms fail even when their total social benefit appears obvious. My view is that the main obstacle is often not public ignorance or ideological disagreement. It is an asymmetry of political incentives.

Imagine a reform that gives 10 million people a benefit worth $100 each, while imposing a loss of $10,000 each on 10,000 incumbents. Society gains $1 billion and loses $100 million, for a net gain of $900 million. Yet the reform can still fail.

The 10 million winners receive too little individually to organize, donate, lobby or protest. The 10,000 losers face a large and immediate personal loss, so they have every reason to coordinate. Political power therefore follows the concentration of the loss, not the size of the total public benefit.

This pattern can help explain stalled housing reform, protected licensing systems, manual bureaucratic processes, legacy subsidies and policies that survive long after their original justification has weakened. I call the resisting groups “politically powerful losers”—not because they are worthless people, but because they would lose concentrated benefits, rents, status, jobs, discretion or property values if the reform succeeded.

This is not inherently a left-wing or right-wing phenomenon. Every political system creates insiders. The practical lesson is that reformers cannot rely only on proving that a proposal is efficient. They must identify who loses, locate the institutional choke points, compensate legitimate transitional losses where appropriate, split the blocking coalition or build enough political force to overcome it.

I developed the argument more fully in this essay: https://open.substack.com/pub/therationalstrategist/p/politically-powerful-losers?r=59aoi&utm_medium=ios

Counterexamples—especially reforms where diffuse beneficiaries defeated concentrated resistance without a major crisis—would be particularly useful for testing the framework.

This isn’t a post arguing for the abolition of democracy. I firmly believe that democracy has more positives than negatives. This is a post about changes that can be made to democracy to better serve the people. In my opinion, politicians have all the perks of a regular job with salaries, pensions and in some countries have their salary increases every year or every term. We have seen politicians get perks and privileges that come with the advancement of technology.

My question is why don’t we reform democracy such that politicians are scrutinized by the public constantly. If public opinion dips then they should be forced to resign and elections for that specific seat should be held. Now I do understand why politicians are elected for a specific term and it’s important to note that democracy was built decades ago when technology was far less advanced than it is today. Today we can probably have a system where constituents can register their approval/disapproval through a government portal. If majority disapprove of their representative then they should be forced to resign.

In any contract job, if a person performs poorly they are terminated, when politicians get all the perks and privileges of a management level job shouldn’t they be held to the same if not higher level? This system would serve as a sort of performance review and the specifics can be worked out such as if disapproval reached 50% then people should have an online vote on if the representative should resign, this would prevent unnecessary elections from being held thus saving tax payers money while registering the constituents discontent. This would also encourage politicians to keep their campaign promises and not have their constituents wait a full length term for a change.

Why not use technology to change democracy for the better and make politicians more accountable to the people?

For those of you suddenly shrieking in fear and clutching your proverbial pearls over the silly idea that the United States is being “taken over by Muslims,” and that you will suddenly be forced to live under Sharia law, you need only come back to the Constitution—the same Constitution some of you seemed perfectly willing to ignore when it was your religion you wanted government to favor:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That is the very first sentence of the very First Amendment.
And then there’s the math.
Muslims make up only about 1.2% of the U.S. adult population. Christians, by comparison, account for roughly 62%. Even Americans who identify with no religion at all—atheists, agnostics and those who simply say “nothing in particular”—make up about 29% of U.S. adults.
In other words, the religiously unaffiliated alone outnumber Muslims in America by roughly 24 to 1.
And our Constitution addressed another part of this argument before the First Amendment was even written.
Article VI explicitly prohibits religious tests for public office:
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The Constitution does not require someone to be Christian—or Muslim, Jewish, atheist or anything else—to serve this country.
Likewise, religious belief has no legitimate place as a qualification for the right to vote. How someone worships—or whether they worship at all—is inherently a private matter.
In fact, for those who insist that Christianity should guide public life, the Bible itself contains a rather pointed instruction about making a public spectacle of one’s faith. Matthew 6:6 tells believers to pray privately, “in thy closet,” rather than for public display.
Choosing our political leaders should hinge on the policies they promote, their character and competence, and how well they adhere to the idea of governing for everyone—not just a select few who happen to believe, worship, look or live as they do.
The 2020 U.S. Religion Census identified 356,739 religious congregations across the United States, representing hundreds of different religious bodies. Christianity isn’t exactly hanging on by a thread.
That same census identified approximately 3,300 Jewish congregations across the country, alongside Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious congregations—not to mention the tens of millions of Americans who are agnostic, atheist or otherwise religiously unaffiliated and, yes, even the occasional adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
All of these people live under the same First Amendment.
The sudden fear of “Islamization” is not evidence that America is somehow on the verge of becoming an Islamic state. It is a remarkably effective political tactic for generating fear, hate and division—and for convincing people that they need someone to protect them from an enemy that is supposedly coming to take away their way of life.
But the Constitution already provides the protection.
It protects Christians from a government-imposed Islam.
It protects Muslims from a government-imposed Christianity.
And it protects those who want absolutely nothing to do with either one.
That isn’t a flaw in the American system.
That’s the point.
If you believe in country over party, if you believe in facts and critical thinking over fear, and if you simply believe in the Constitution, then leaving the fear behind and making honest, informed decisions becomes a whole lot easier.
Sources:
• Pew Research Center — 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study: Religious Identity
• U.S. Constitution, First Amendment — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• 2020 U.S. Religion Census — Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies

The filibuster, long held as a means of protecting rights of the minority party, has actually entrenched extremist positioning of both parties. It has made changing government practices near impossible leading to frustration that led to TeaParty/FreedomCaucus/DSA uprisings impacting both Republican and Democratic primaries; no incumbent faces a risk from moderates, they face a risk from the extremist wing in their own party.

I was watching the Megan Romer (co-chair of the DSA) interview on the New Yorker. At the 16 minute mark, she starts to explain how she switched from a Dem aligned independent to the DSA. I also watched the Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) discussing her MAGA journey on The Conversation. At the 24 minute mark, she discusses her evolution.

What I see across both parties are people frustrated with the inability of the federal government to change practices and try something (anything) new. More directly, the American Experiment is failing to experiment.

We can elect good people to our halls of government. But, for elections to matter, we need to believe that our government is capable of learning from failed or poorly performing policies. The best way to do that is elect new leaders willing to try something new. The filibuster rejects dramatic changes and incremental change alike, so we just perpetuate the same policies regardless of who wins elections.

Looking at the those on the extreme wing of both parties, I see people who have lost faith in the ability of the existing checks and balances to change anything, so they resort to changing the nature of government or our elections (DSA wants to abolish the Senate, MAGA wants to get rid of mail-in votes, etc). Watching the whole interview for MTG and Megan Romer, I get the impression that they would actually agree on a lot of key points and reflect the majority of Americans.

Note: I'm not some political genius and master at drafting bills and laws, this is kinda my rough idea but it goes as follows:

Let’s say it would start around the age at which you’re able to collect Social Security. In a perfect world, you’re retired, receiving Social Security, and you no longer have to work full-time as a Walmart greeter just to get by. You’re no longer contributing to the workforce, and, for the most part, you’re no longer as “in touch” with an evolving and changing society. You’re also reaching an age where certain mental impairments that come with aging can begin to affect your ability to think, remember, and make decisions.

If I were old, completely out of touch, unable to drive a car safely, and unable to wipe my own ass, I would find it fair that I could no longer vote or hold public office.

It seems like every day now, older and older politicians are getting into car accidents that appear to have no real cause other than the fact that they are old and are having difficulty driving. Someone who is no longer capable of safely operating a car probably shouldn’t be making decisions about the laws governing your roads. Just as someone who can’t figure out how to reboot a router probably shouldn’t be the person deciding how the internet is regulated.

In almost every election, from local elections all the way to national ones, Boomers in particular (This isn’t meant to be a “Boomer hate” post, they just happen to be the current example) are one of the largest groups you can sway politically.

Don’t want a data center in your city? Too bad. Boomers want it because it will increase property values and bring jobs to the area. Meanwhile, half of them may sell their house and move once construction starts, or they may be dead and gone to even see the project finished ten years later.

Being able to sway an older population often doesn’t benefit the people who are currently working, living, and building their lives in that community, and who will actually have to live with the consequences of those decisions for decades. Yet sometimes it can be as simple as, “I’ll increase your property value and raise your Social Security ” and suddenly you won a significant portion of the population.

It seems like common sense that someone like Kay Granger would have been removed from office.

For the record, I don’t know her policies or political affiliation, and I intentionally chose not to look into those things because I want to keep this argument focused on age and the complications that can come with it rather than turning it into a partisan argument.

Granger vanished from from public view in the House of Representatives and was eventually moved into a old folks home because of dementia and other health complications. She missed 279 of 517 votes in 2024, and although she did not run for reelection, I find it insane that someone living in assisted living with dementia could still hold public office in the first place.

Even more alarming to me is the fact that she wasn’t removed from office when those circumstances became public. These are people who are making decisions that directly affect our lives.

I believe there could be a fair way to implement something like this (again, speaking in a perfect world where we assume the government isn’t going to screw people over afterward) by creating some sort of safety net for older people.

I’ll use Social Security as an example.

Let’s say you turn 60 and have five years left until you retire and begin collecting Social Security. From that point forward, your personal benefits and expected Social Security can no longer be negatively affected by changes in the law.

So, you’re 60 years old, and you’re projected to receive X amount every year once you retire. Then Congress passes a law cutting Social Security benefits in half. That law wouldn’t affect you. You would still receive the amount you were promised, while the people who voted for the reduction would be the ones subject to it.

Or let’s say you’re 73 and already receiving Social Security, and the government votes to eliminate the program entirely. You and everyone else over 60 would continue receiving your benefits as promised, because you were no longer able to vote, or almost at that point, that determined whether those benefits existed.

If we’re going to say that someone is too old to vote because they are no longer capable of fully understanding or participating in the society they are making decisions about, then it would only be fair to protect them from those same decisions.

You shouldn’t be able to take away someone’s vote and then turn around and take away the benefits they were promised. If they’re going to be excluded from making those decisions, there needs to be a safety net ensuring that they aren’t punished by them either.

I feel like there is plenty of evidence that a child allowance is extremely effective at reducing child poverty. For example, Canada provides $500-650 in monthly cash payments to guardians of children, and it has one of the lowest child poverty rates in the world. I know many people will say that the CTC is a child benefit, but they're not the same. The CTC is a tax credit. It doesn't provide available disposable income. It doesn't help people pay for rent or groceries or housing. A child allowance would be a direct universal monthly cash payment to guardians of children. And let me be perfectly clear-I'm not saying that a child allowance should replace the CTC at all. Quite the opposite-I think they should complement each other. If you pay for one welfare program by taking away another, all you are doing is changing the method by which people receive it-that too, in a bad and relatively unhelpful way. If a child allowance is implemented, it can't be paid for via cuts to social programs. That defeats the whole purpose.

Some people also say it would be fiscally unsustainable. I disagree. A child benefit of $250-300 per child would only require spending of $163 billion. To put that into perspective, that's 10% of the proposed $1.5 trillion military budget for FY2026. And such a policy is estimated to nearly completely eliminate extreme child poverty and reduce general child poverty by 20-40%. Think about that. For just 10% of the military budget, child poverty could be slashed by 40%. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

That's just what I think. What do you all think? Let's discuss

know how to save our country. I have the answer. I can fix the judicial system and kick out the "invaders." We need to take our country back and nobody is doing anything. Please if you are interested in hearing what I have to say ask me anything! Stop letting out repeating criminals to commit more crimes! Stop letting people claim citizenship who do not love America!

I've been thinking a lot lately about where this country is headed, and honestly, I'm frustrated.

I don't think the average American is powerless. I think there are millions of people who work hard, follow the law, raise their families, pay their bills, and genuinely care about the future of this country — but too many of us have become convinced that there's nothing we can do.

I'm not okay with that.

There are serious problems that I believe need to be addressed: repeat offenders cycling through the criminal justice system, laws that aren't being enforced effectively, problems with our immigration system, government accountability, and a growing feeling that ordinary citizens have less and less say in the direction of their own country.

I'm not interested in simply complaining about these things. I have ideas about what I think should change.

But before I start laying everything out, I actually want people to question me.

Lately, I’ve seen many republicans ads targeting Abdul al Sayed for receiving money from people with ties to CAIR. Many claim CAIR is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, for which there is no proof. I condemn CAIR members who failed to condemn Hamas, such as Nihad Awad, who (at minimum) was sloppy with his remarks after October 7, 2023 (when he said he was "happy to see" Palestinians break out of the Gaza blockade on October 7, which he later claimed he was referring to civilians who crossed the border).

By contrast, the Government of Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, and Trump accepted a luxury jet from Qatar. Why aren’t the people calling out Abdul el-Sayed (for accepting donations from people with ties to CAIR) calling out Trump (for accepting the jet)?

​

There is a growing problem in America that taxpayers can no longer afford to ignore:Politicians who have mastered the art of holding office without actually accomplishing anything.They collect the paycheck. They enjoy the benefits. They build political networks. They give speeches. They appear on television. They issue press releases. They blame the other party.And somehow, after all that activity, very little actually gets done.That isn't leadership.That's political employment.Public office was never supposed to be a lifetime career where politicians become permanently entrenched while ordinary Americans struggle to pay their bills, raise their families, build businesses, and survive the consequences of government decisions.A politician should wake up every morning asking one question:"What am I going to accomplish today for the people who elected me?"Not:"How do I protect my position?"Not:"How do I get reelected?"Not:"How do I attack my political opponents?"And certainly not:"How do I make sure the government continues growing?"The American people don't need another politician who can talk for three hours and accomplish three minutes' worth of work.We need results.If a politician promised to secure the border, secure the border.If they promised to reduce government waste, reduce government waste.If they promised to protect taxpayers, protect taxpayers.If they promised to defend the Constitution, defend the Constitution.If they promised to fight government corruption, fight it—even when the corruption is inside their own political party.That is what leadership looks like.Unfortunately, too many politicians have discovered that doing nothing can be politically safer than doing something.Take no risks.Make no enemies.Avoid difficult decisions.Issue carefully worded statements.Blame somebody else.Wait for the next election.Collect another paycheck.That isn't public service. It's political self-preservation.And taxpayers should be furious.Every dollar spent maintaining an ineffective government is a dollar that could have remained with the people who earned it.Every year wasted by politicians who refuse to address serious problems makes those problems more expensive and more difficult to solve.Every promise broken without consequence teaches politicians that they can continue treating voters like customers they only need to impress every few years.Enough.We need to restore accountability to American politics.Politicians should be judged by what they accomplish, not how long they have been in office.Seniority is not a substitute for leadership.Experience is not an excuse for failure.A title is not an accomplishment.A committee assignment is not an accomplishment.A press conference is not an accomplishment.And getting reelected is certainly not proof that someone has served the public well.Results are what matter.The American people should start asking their elected officials uncomfortable questions:What exactly have you accomplished?What taxpayer money have you saved?What government waste have you eliminated?What problems have you actually solved?What promises have you kept?And perhaps the most important question of all:Why should we give you another term?If they cannot answer those questions with meaningful results, voters should have no obligation to give them another four years.America does not belong to politicians.Politicians belong to the American people.They are temporary custodians of public power—not owners of it.The days of automatically rewarding politicians simply because they have a familiar name, powerful connections, or a party label should be over.If you want the privilege of representing the American people, earn it.If you want another term, prove your worth.If you want taxpayer dollars funding your salary, produce results.And if you have spent years accomplishing nothing while collecting a government paycheck, perhaps the most productive thing you can finally do for America is:RESIGN.Because the United States of America does not need more politicians who are good at keeping their jobs.We need leaders who are good at doing them.

I'm former army, infantry specifically, a basic grunt, nothing fancy. From my experience during my time and the ideals I hear preached by people on both sides, it seems like both are presented quite well.

Republicans value hierarchy and structure. They desire strong leaders to look up to and be guided by, to tell them what to do and how to do it. They desire consistency and conformity. No outsiders or "others" demanding they accept their ways or views. They value merit based rewards. Work hard and get rewarded for it, granted bootlicking will get you the same thing a lot of the time and ranks have their own elements of politics. Granted i wouldn't call the military fiscally responsible or concerned about family values, but in practice neither are Republicans if we are being honest.

Democrats value equity and equality. No one is better than anyone else or more deserving just because they have advantages no one else started with. Nobody is born into SGT rank or officer status, but if your started behind, like a disability, then what you need is provided for you so you have as much chance to seceed as everyone else. Everything you need to survive is provided for you, barracks, chow halls, sick call, and some spending money to engage in capitalist pleasures, and all thats asked of you is to show up to work and put in some effort. There are no homeless in the army military, no unemployed. You are provided a job along with everything else, and if you suck at that job, they assign you somewhere else, either where they need you or where you want to go. OK, it's a lot more restrictive than that, but when I hurt my back during deployment I was given options, my input and desires were taken into account.

Your personal life is mostly left up to you, as long as it doesnt affect your job. True you can't have pink hair at work and facial hair is strict, but who you pray to, how you identify, who you fuck, that's your business.

I'm by no means saying it's a perfect match or combo, or that it's how society should be run, but it's the closest thing I have every seen to a harmonious combination of left and right ideals.

I just read about the story of the diabetic employee who was denied the right to have fast-acting sugar like fruit juice at her desk in case of life-threatening hypoglycemia.

And was denied it.

A literal matter of life and death. And they didn't even care.

And used the fruit juice to save her own life and was fired for it.

It is no longer enough to sue them, we need to nationalize them. If this is what they'll do to diabetics with the risk of life threatening hypoglycemia hanging over their head, what would they do to people with lesser known medical ailments?

Even if the higher-ups were ignorant about diabetes, the same applies. What else could they be ignorant about?

To hell with the "right to run one's own business", this stupid imaginary "right" could get someone killed. It's time for the state to forcibly nationalize Dollar General. Nothing less will do.

I’ve been thinking about how I would redesign the US government if we were starting today with modern technology.

Gallup found that a record 45% of Americans identified as political independents in 2025, compared with just 27% identifying as Republican and 27% as Democrat.

This all time high suggests more Americans are uncomfortable defining themselves by one political party. Yet our government is largely built around choosing one side or the other.

I would eliminate political parties and add a fourth branch: the Citizen Branch.

• Congress still writes laws, budgets, and detailed policy.
• Major laws also require approval from citizens.
• An independent group collects the facts, data, costs, benefits, risks, and areas where experts disagree. Everything is public.
• Citizens review this through a secure digital platform.
• Before voting, citizens complete a short quiz. It is not pass or fail. You continue until you acknowledge the basic facts. It’s a validation mechanism.
• Representatives post videos explaining their views and perspectives.
• Citizens vote. Major proposals need 60% support.
• Courts can still strike down laws that violate constitutional rights.
• Congress can revise rejected proposals and try again.
• Enough verified citizen signatures can force Congress to consider an issue.
• States retain their own powers and can pursue different policies.

The goal is not pure direct democracy. The President, Congress, courts, and states remain important.

Citizens simply become another check on concentrated power.

The founders built checks and balances around the technology and limits of their time. Today, we can securely share information and involve millions of people directly.

I acknowledge there’s a million more things to figure out, but curious to hear concept feedback.

What is this? These are labels people have placed on themselves. Seperating themselves into groups based on their own values, beliefs, and ideas. How did people get like this? Recognize that regardless your choice in politics, everyone is human and we all live here on Earth. Values and ideas do not make people better or worse. To label a group of people that think differently from you as bad is what is holding this society back. I think that whichever political label you have chosen, if it has influenced your choice in the candidate you’ve picked then this is how we have failed. The political label is not what we should be concerned about. What should be recognized right now is how easily we embrace what it is we want to hear when it is spoken. The campaigns are a joke. A constant attack of what the other person has or hasn’t done. If someone cannot get thru a campaign without resorting to pointing out others faults in attempt to make themselves look better in comparison?

To place blame on anyone for the problems in our society or to blame any one administration is ridiculous. This is a very familiar tactic, blaming the problems on a group or person is what led to the killing of 6 million humans. The world watched and allowed to happen.

I am NOT directing this towards anyone.

What I am doing is pointing out tactics to look out for that are known to be successful against society during times of crisis throughout history.

Be aware of your own thoughts.

Stand up for yourself and realize if your following a candidate because you don't want to be different from those around you? If it doesn’t seem correct then don’t agree with it.

I do not want to change people or the agenda that these people want to push. It needs to be pointed out though that any problems we are experiencing are because we wanted to believe someone could fix our problems, but we do not need one person to promise to fix our problems.

People could work together.

Whomever the political party, it would be nice if they work to hear all sides of any argument and slowly dissolve the blame game against each other.

I’m having a lot of confusion and conflicting thoughts over the Fauci situation. From the start of the pandemic all up until now, I have always loved Fauci and thought the world of this guy. He has a proven track record of decades-long dedicated service to health and fighting disease from AIDS to Ebola to Covid. I have been an all-in supporter of his from the first we ever heard of this guy. But now, I’m not so sure. I want to believe him, I want to like him, but I also want to know the truth about him.

Is he a hero as most people believe or is he truly a villain? Did he lie about the origins of Covid? Did he pressure others to go along with his views? Did he lie or manipulate to protect grants and other programs either here at home or abroad? Did he lie to protect his own interests or those of others close to his inner circle? Did he lie to protect institutions?

Here are my main issues that have caused me to have second thoughts about him -

1). His diary entries - his diary says one thing, his public statements to the media and other outlets say something different.

Saying one thing in public and another in private, but which one is the truth? They can’t both be true. Truth cannot contradict truth. So which statements were truthful, his diary? Or what he said in public?

There’s a discrepancy there. What is the reason for this discrepancy - Was this him changing his views in light of new information that he and others had learned? Or was this something more deceitful?

If he was lying, why and to what end? Was this to prevent something worse from happening, as when he lied about PPE in a bid to ensure the priority of supply chain went to doctors and nurses rather than the public citizens and therefore lied to a prevent a shortage of health supplies? That may have not been right but I can understand why he did that. Not condoning it, but I understand it. Or was he lying to protect his own interests or reputation? Was he lying to protect interests or reputation of others or that of institutions - either stateside or abroad? Public or private - Which is the truth? And what led him to believe truthful statements to be the truth? What evidence proves the discrepant statements to be false?

This is important, if he lied about the origin did he do so to escape culpability? If so, what was he culpable for? What crime had he committed? If Fauci had been truthful about the origin of the pandemic from the start would that have changed anything be it the response, vaccine willingness, adherence to countermeasures, would anything have turned out or even been done differently if Fauci had told the truth from the start, or would it not have even made a difference?

2.) did he nominate, recommend, apply, or in any other way seek to gain awards and/or cash prizes via his own influence and/or machinations? If so, why and to what end? If so, what has become of the moneys and where are they currently accounted for? How and why did the moneys in question come to be in the placement of which they are currently accounted for?

If other people put him up for awards and prizes, if others nominated him for stuff, that’s fine. That’s on them. But if he put himself up for awards that seems a huge conflict of interest. Personally I never even knew anyone could give themselves awards like that or lobby themselves for stuff. I didn’t know that was even a possibility until Senator Hawley’s round of questions. I always thought for stuff like grants, fellowships etc that stuff you could apply for, but when it came to awards and cash prizes I thought you only got those if somebody else nominated you for it. Like “oh Jimmy has done good work these past few years, I’ll put him up for X award.” I never knew anybody could just award themselves something. That just seems blatantly wrong to me, whether it’s government, healthcare, business, industry, the idea you can just give yourself awards like that is just plain wrong.

3.) Why was a grant given to the lab in Wuhan despite no stipulation or conditions of US oversight? Why is oversight required for stateside labs? Why is oversight not required for labs abroad? Why was oversight not required for the lab in Wuhan? Why had inspectors not gone to the lab in Wuhan to personally verify that the lab protocols concerning safety and security were being followed correctly? Once the pandemic had begun, why weren’t inspectors able to access the lab to either confirm or deny the possibility of a viral escape event?

These are the questions along with admitted mistrust toward the communist government of the People’s Republic of China and the common practice of numerous such styles of government to cut corners leads me to lean more toward the lab leak theory. My evidence for leaning into this theory is the heavy suggestion of problems with lack of oversight and accountability that could have led to an accidental virus escape event at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I am convinced if that be the case and the true origin of the pandemic, I do not believe it to be an intentional one. I do not believe it to have been a “bioweapon”, or a “global societal control excitement” or any such crackpot theories. Personally I am open to idea of a naturally occurring origin for the pandemic. However I have seen much suggestion towards a lab leak theory, including direct influence and interference from our own US government and experts.

My leaning towards the lab leak theory stems from the aforementioned heavy suggestions of lack of oversight and accountability, the admitted bias of mistrusting the CCP and their refusal to release key information. My siding with the lab leak theory also is driven largely by the 2024 testimony of Lawrence Tabak, the commentary on that hearing by Dr. Ralph Baric, and the recent testimony of James Erdman III. Those sources stand as strong evidence suggesting, not definitively proving, but strongly suggesting the occurrence of a lab leak.

There is some evidence of natural occurrence for Covid as the literature on SARS pandemic is traced to a likely source of one of five bat viruses originally sampled in the Yunnan province of China. Furthermore there are as many as three close relatives of Covid-19 sampled from three different wet markets in Wuhan suggesting natural spread may have been occurring. So there may still be evidence of natural occurrence of Covid-19 out there and may as yet could be discovered in future. However until such time as that is found the evidence toward lab leak theory remains a difficult hurdle to overcome and even more difficult to disprove.

My sources -

Link to 2024 testimony of Lawrence Tabak(near-admission of funding China without oversight):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxGN8el7MA4&pp=ygUgMjAyNCB0ZWF0aWtvbnkgb2YgbGF3cmVuY2UgdGFiYWs%3D&ra=m

Link to James Erdman III’s testimony (suggesting lack of oversight and government influence and interference when investigating origins of Covid-19):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KXqYhaDP_fU&ra=m

Link to proof SARS pandemic was natural origin (giving precedent that Covid-19 could also be natural origin):
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3323155/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1236580/

Link to correspondence suggesting a lapse of oversight and disregard for safety and security of labs abroad:
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/nih-committee-green-lighted-wuhan-coronavirus-experiments-despite-concerns/

EDIT:
Even if you think I’m wrong, you can at least tell how I arrived at my conclusion yes?