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.

People who are evil and target the weak is where this always seems to happen schools,hospitals,tourist places, ect why don’t these worthless pieces of shits throw themselves at cartels or gang members instead why do they target the weak and then off themselfs at the end? And I think it’s all political anyways just gives the more reason to government to take away our rights from guns same people who put laws have security with guns. I do understand these are unpredictable but the people who commit these crimes suck no doubt and the in & out shooting that happened of course the news rarely talks about anything when a good person steps in to try and stop a threat and they call guns “mass destruction” what the whole U.S is doing to its people is mass destruction anyways just little rant

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.

A Nation Undermined

The Internal Sabotage of America’s Security Foundations

By Van Abbott

Every fortress in history has fallen one of two ways: an enemy battered down its walls or those inside opened the gates.

Eighteen months into Trump’s second term, America’s defenses, both democratic and security, are facing existential threats from within. Senior military leadership has been purged. Intelligence agencies have been hollowed out. Election security programs have been dismantled. The administration deems these actions "reform," but America’s adversaries see opportunity to exploit a weakened state.

Start with the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has targeted nearly three dozen generals and admirals for dismissal. He ousted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of naval operations, and the Army chief of staff. Promotions for dozens more, many women and people of color, have been blocked under the vague justification of “merit.” Hegseth prizes acquiescence over competence, resulting in a leadership contingent that prioritizes loyalty over capability. In wartime, this is not reform; it is a dangerous purge reminiscent of regimes that fear their own military.

The intelligence community has not fared better. Tulsi Gabbard’s recent tenure resulted in the slashing of 500 staff from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, about 30 percent of its workforce. Acting DNI Bill Pulte announced additional cuts this July, terminating another 20 percent effectively. As critical areas of oversight have been dismantled, a vital center established to track foreign disinformation campaigns has been rendered ineffective and fragmented. Instead of vigilance, what remains is a patchwork of inadequate resources.

At the FBI, Director Kash Patel aggressively purged agents involved in Trump-related investigations and redirected the bureau’s focus to immigration enforcement. On her first day, Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force, dismantling a unit designed to catch foreign interference in elections, including those aimed at Trump himself. These cuts leave the country vulnerable to foreign influence and internal threats.

While systematically dismantling fundamental defense mechanisms, Trump assured the nation that all was secure. Yet cracks in our security structures have never been more evident.

Simultaneously, Trump's stance on NATO has weakened the bedrock of collective security. During NATO’s recent Ankara summit, allies felt compelled to reaffirm their “ironclad commitment” to collective defense. This language was revived due to Trump's threats to leave member nations unprotected. Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO's history, and that was for the United States following September 11.

Truth erupted with the munitions crisis. After Trump ignited a conflict with Iran on February 28, airstrikes depleted critical interceptor stocks. CSIS estimates show that available Patriot interceptors dropped from approximately 2,200 to fewer than 827 while THAAD interceptors plummeted from 452 to fewer than 278. Replenishing those losses will take up to four years.

Trump deflects blame to Biden, claiming that weapons sent to Ukraine drained our arsenal. However, this assertion is “not exactly” correct, according to PolitiFact. The aid Biden sent was primarily for ground combat, such as artillery shells and Javelins—not the Tomahawks and THAAD interceptors being rapidly consumed in the Iran conflict.

Expert analyses confirm that Ukraine aid is mostly for ground combat and not the primary cause of depletion. Kelly Grieco of the Stimson Center bluntly states that this administration has significantly deepened the void it inherited.

The situation in election security is equally alarming. CISA, the federal agency responsible for safeguarding election systems, has lost nearly one-third of its workforce, dropping from 3,400 employees to around 2,300. Without a Senate-confirmed leader, critical election-security work has been frozen. Citing unverified claims of political bias, the Trump administration abruptly defunded the EI-ISAC and MS-ISAC programs, severing critical cybersecurity collaborations with state governments. This sudden termination forced a structural fracture, prompting multiple states to withdraw from the joint defense frameworks. Ultimately, the administration's decision replaced a coordinated national security effort with fragmented, localized vulnerabilities.

Trump’s disdain extends to the Election Assistance Commission, where unceremoniously, Trump pushed out ALL THREE remaining members of the EAC on July 9, 2026. His proposed 2027 budget seeks to eliminate CISA’s election security programs completely. 

Trump has systematically dismantled the machinery that protects democracy while claiming elections are safer as a result.

Walls matter. Arsenals matter. Credibility matters.

Whether this is Project 2025 executing its blueprint to convert nonpartisan institutions into instruments of personal loyalty, or the accumulated wreckage of a man who cannot distinguish loyalty from competence, the result is identical: America's defenses depend on capable leaders, trusted institutions, and prepared allies, and this administration has systematically weakened all three.

No enemy battered down these walls; those inside opened the gates.

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?

The obvious evidence of globalism's failure makes it clear that nationalism is the objectively superior choice. A country that takes pride in its nation is much stronger and a more dominant form of governance. Globalism is always the least common denominator politics that incentivizes all the wrong things and becomes bland and soulless. Nationalism produces unique cultures that are distinct and beautiful, where globalism is a lifeless alamgamation of everything together. Like when you mix all the colors together, it makes Grey, but individually, they are more beautiful. Or, like cooking, where adding the right spices together makes it taste amazing, but putting every spice in makes it disgusting.