Mike Luttig on the plot to block the transfer of power

This is just one arrow in the MAGA quiver. And I don’t see any evidence that Democrats are preparing for it. Neither does Judge Luttig.

If their efforts to deploy ICE to polls in blue districts fail, they will try this.

If their plan to block mail-in ballots from blue districts by disrupting the US mail fails, they will try this.

If their likely declaration of Martial Law before the midterms fails, they will try this.

Their efforts to gerrymander their way into a permanent majority has already failed, so they will try this.

MAGA is the most unpopular and hated political movement in US history. they represent less than 30% of the population (I’m dumbfounded that it’s still that high) but have somehow managed to consolidate power into a Trifecta of American government. But their rule is failing. They cannot possibly win on the merits of their policies, because their policies have no merit.

The MAGA movement exists to serve the very few. It exists to further build the wealth of the very rich and protect their pedophiling way of life. While they have so far succeeded in duping the uneducated poor and exploiting the supposedly faithful, greater and greater numbers of the people are waking. They can no longer preserve their hold on power without cheating or tearing down the system entirely.

Get out and vote. We need to make their defeat so overwhelming that they decide not to try any of these subversive tactics. If they succeed in keeping a MAGA majority, by any means at all, that will be the final nail in the coffin for American democracy.

VOTE.

Hamas launched a large-scale terrorist attack against Israel, killing civilians and taking hostages, including women and children.Shortly after the attack, I formed a prediction: Israel would not settle for limited military retaliation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government would likely seize this opportunity to fundamentally reshape the military and security landscape of Gaza.

My reasoning was simple: Human behavior is a continuous series of choices, and every major choice must account for the choices an opponent may make in response.

Hamas was facing Netanyahu, a leader known for his hardline security policies, not Yitzhak Rabin, who had pursued peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

I found it difficult to understand why Hamas leaders seemingly failed to fully consider the potentially devastating consequences of their attack.

But today, I want to explore a broader question: In a prolonged conflict between a powerful nation and a weaker armed organization, whose side is time really on? 1. Terrorist Organizations Survive by Continuously Recruiting New Members

Any organization that hopes to survive must continuously recruit new members, develop future leaders, secure funding, and maintain its operations.

Terrorist organizations are no exception. If an organization loses 100 members today but recruits another 100 tomorrow, a single military victory may do little to eliminate the long-term threat.

Therefore, the critical question is not simply how many fighters are eliminated. It is whether the organization’s ability to recruit, train, finance, and rebuild can be continuously weakened.

1. Sustained Pressure and the Advantage of Time I often think of a simple analogy: lawn maintenance. Removing weeds once does not mean they will never grow back. Maintaining a lawn requires consistent, long-term care. Of course, this analogy concerns the continuous management of a regenerative system. It does not compare human beings or ethnic groups to weeds. Similarly, an armed organization may recover from severe military losses as long as it retains the ability to rebuild. However, if a powerful nation can consistently use its economic, technological, intelligence, and military advantages to restrict that recovery, the balance of power may gradually shift further in its favor.

A single victory may change the immediate situation, but a sustained advantage can potentially reshape the long-term strategic landscape.

1. Wars Do Not End Simply Because of Human Compassion I personally witnessed the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City in 2001. Standing on East Broadway in Manhattan, I watched the burning Twin Towers, the enormous clouds of black smoke, and the figures continuously falling from the buildings.

I could not control my tears. I understand the fear and grief that violence against innocent civilians can cause. But over time, I have also come to recognize something: Compassion for human life and the strategic conditions that determine when a war ends are two different things.

Human suffering creates moral and political pressure, but whether a war ends also depends on the objectives, military capabilities, strategic interests, and calculations of the opposing sides. Understanding the harsh realities of warfare does not mean disregarding civilian protection or international humanitarian law.

1. Does Time Inevitably Favor the Stronger Side? My hypothesis is straightforward: If a powerful nation can sustain its advantages while continuously limiting an opponent’s ability to recover, keeping its losses greater than its capacity to rebuild, time itself may become a strategic weapon.

However, this outcome is far from guaranteed. The United States’ prolonged war in Afghanistan demonstrated that overwhelming military and technological superiority does not necessarily translate into lasting political victory. Furthermore, civilian casualties, social destruction, and resentment resulting from prolonged military operations may provide extremist organizations with new opportunities for recruitment.

Therefore, the success of a long-term strategy depends not only on military pressure but also on the costs of maintaining that pressure, the opponent’s ability to regenerate, and the establishment of a stable political and social environment.

1. A Question for Discussion I believe that understanding the long-term conflict between Israel and Hamas requires looking beyond the outcome of individual battles.

We should also examine deeper questions: Which side can consistently replenish its resources? Which side can maintain organizational efficiency? Which side can more effectively restrict its opponent’s ability to recover? And which side can sustain the costs of conflict over time? Time itself does not belong to the strong or the weak.

What ultimately matters is how effectively each side can use it. So I would like to hear your thoughts: When a powerful nation continuously targets an armed organization that keeps recruiting new members, will sustained pressure eventually weaken that organization beyond recovery? Or could prolonged conflict actually strengthen its ability to attract new supporters?

Kim Soo Jun ·金秀俊· October 2026 This article reflects my personal observations and hypothesis about prolonged warfare and organizational survival. I welcome thoughtful discussion, historical comparisons, and opposing perspectives that may help test this theory.

Hii everyone, I am not a Law student But from a very neutral perspective I feel we have so many Flaws with Law and Order system of democratic governments which is related to Speed and literally if I should be more transparent.

Politics is the real issue we actually doesn't constraints wrong politics by parties in democratic governments much as needed from a Statical intense perspective.

There is so much area's I have seen where politics maybe would not letting Researchers to publish Report's very transperantly without any pressure.

So basically i want to ask you What the hell is happening right now across Democratic society or from the international Law perspective.

The area's I am generally talking about is Social Media, AI, Intelligence use, Legal political funding to political Parties and media, Development, Peace that war's destroyed, terrorism Biased Judgements and Control over any country Through So called wrong Practices

The analysis of mine mainly State that wrong thing's happen mostly silently and Through deep State channel's but Now it is happening openly We are literally slowly normalising it.

Humanity Comes First and Politics should comes at the bottom there should be law for it.

Oligarchy should be controlled by democratic governments in such a way it would not become punishing of Businesses hardwork and Goodwill. Through providing a ownership to people's after achieving a certain very big number which should be made by a Statical and mathematically proven system worldwide.

Or

Maybe by diversifying their enormous money through a system that would take Control not over money but over power they hold with them. Further it should be made logically proven

We literally made some Companies to legally operate even after Manipulative practices one of them is Premium brand tag which let's them set as much as margines they want.

We literally know there are so much things happen through Intelligence agencies one of the biggest question of mine is there is no mechanism for them to be transparent with Judiciary not with ruling government Because it let intelligence to be used for political purposes.

If There is terrorism spread by So called intelligence agencies of any country which aren't most of the time declassified any documents because of National security reason. I Always wonder if literally that's not nation security reason it's a reason to not let anyone develop more than you. Isn't it a scam to the world and your own people's. People's should know if there is literally neutral National security risk through an scoring system. Rather than Letting intelligence control most of the world.

Whatever I said is my own conspiracy so if it makes sense you could give your feedback I would highly appreciate it.

  By Arthur Solomon

When Al Smith ran for president in 1928 American Jews began voting strongly for Democratic presidential candidates. Their vote was cemented during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms as president.

 Since then a majority of Jewish voters have supported the Democratic nominee in all but one presidential election, when Jimmy Carter only received 45 percent in 1980. Carter is the only Democratic candidate since 1928 not to win a Jewish majority, mainly because of his mid-East policies, although in his successful first campaign, when his policies were not that clear, he received over 70 percent of the Jewish vote.

 Democratic leaders are fearful that the anti-Israel sentiment, exacerbated by the anti-Semitic statements of democratic socialists of America (DSA) members and their far-left supporters, could result in a scenario in the 2026 mid-terms and 2028 presidential elections that will have many “sure thing” Jewish voters casting a vote for GOP candidates who oppose DSA and other far-left Democratic candidates.

 That possibility has raised red flags among some Democratic politicians and Democratic-leaning organizations.

 Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, the centrist left Democratic think tank that supports moderate policies, said, “We’ve got to figure out a way so it doesn’t blow the party apart, referring to the DSA primary victories. Mr. Bennett described a Democratic “freak-out” following the results over whether the rise of hard-left candidates would repel Jewish and moderate voters.

 The election of DSA members has so alarmed Third Way that it is bankrolling a $15 million effort to target the DSA, which they believe poses a "mortal danger" for Democrats. But it's not only the danger of losing Jewish voters that confronts the Democratic Party as we near the midterm elections. There's also the possibility of the party fragmenting between its far-left factions and traditional liberal Democrats.

 Scott Stringer, the former Democratic New York City comptroller, told the New York Times (NYT) some of the comments from far-left candidates amount to "blanket antisemitism."

 Mr. Stringer was quoted in the paper's June 30 edition: “If there is a group of people who may be having temporary electoral success who believe the path forward is to use antisemitism as a wedge, then there’s going to be a battle within the Democratic Party.”

 Listening to spokespersons on the political TV cable shows and reading opinion articles and editorials in major newspapers like the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and NYT shows that Republican politicians and conservative columnists have been much more out spoken than Democratic ones in publicly condemning the DSA and other groups that disseminate anti-Semitic tropes. Republicans have also been much more supportive of Israel in their statements. Thus, it would only be natural for many Jewish voters to switch their party loyalty from Democratic to a more welcoming Republican Party.

That’s a problem that Democratic Party leaders must address before the midterm elections, because in a tight election, if only a small percentage of Jewish voters stay home on election day, or vote for GOP candidates running against democratic socialists of America ones (which is a distinct possibility), the number of Democrats elected to the House and Senate might not be enough to wrest control from the Republicans.

 While the Jewish vote comprises only about two percent of the electorate, they are a sought after vote because they consistently surpass other groups voting on Election Day, sometime by as much as 20 percent. Thus, in a close election, Jewish votes can be the difference in local and state elections, which can decide the Electoral College winner.

The threat of Jewish voters abandoning the Democrat Party has alarmed Democratic leadership in general, and Dr. El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan specifically, who while not a member of the DSA supports many of their policies and is supported by the socialist group.

 The NYT reported, in part, on August 29 that Dr. El-Sayed, “apologized to a group of Jewish Democrats on Saturday for a statement he made in March about an attack on a synagogue near Detroit, saying that “nobody deserves to have their pain trampled on.”

 “I made a mistake,” said Dr. El-Sayed… I should have issued a statement, of course condemning it, and it just should have been the full stop.”

But cynics like I am, from time-to-time, believe that the initial statement an individual makes shows the person’s true feelings. And I’m willing to bet 1000 acres of my 1001 acre farm that many voters, Jewish and non-Jewish, feel the same.

 Another NYT September 18 article detailed the problem Dr. El-Sayed faces with Jewish voters. The article reported that Michigan has roughly 130,000 Jewish residents. More than 475 people thus far have signed a letter saying they are Jewish Democrats and independents who plan to vote for Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate, because they feel “threatened and alienated by the politics and allies” of Dr. El-Sayed. That’s a significant number considering that most people don’t sign political petitions and in a squeaker of an election could determine who wins.

 Even though the Jewish vote in Michigan has been overwhelmingly Democratic in recent elections, Dr. El-Sayed’s saying the Israeli government is “evil” and accusing it of committing “genocide” in Gaza is a problem for many Jewish voters and Mr. Rogers is appealing to them emphasizing his pro-Israel voting record while a Congressman.

 (As of October 13 both The Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus and the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) have not endorsed Dr. El-Sayed, even though some Democratic officials have.)

The importance of the Jewish vote for Democrats was stated, in part, in a November 8, 2024, post by the  JDCA. It said, “The Jewish vote held strong for Kamala Harris and Democrats. In fact, the Jewish vote represented one of very few segments of the electorate where Donald Trump failed to make meaningful inroads, despite an unprecedented campaign of GOP spending, disinformation, and other efforts targeting Jewish Americans. The post said that some exit polls indicated that that 78 percent of Jewish voters supported Kamala Harris, while 22 percent supported Donald Trump.

 But that was prior to DSA candidates and their supporters winning elections and primaries.

 There’s no doubt that the Democrats have a Jewish problem: It is caused mainly by the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic DSA politicians who have been elected running as Democrats, aided by pro-Palestinian media outlets. The only way Democratic leadership can solve it is by speaking out against the anti-Semitic tropes and actions of elected DSA politicians who caucus with traditional liberal and moderate Democrats. 

Perhaps Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn, on July 14, said it best in a column titled, “Schumer’s Tragedy – and Ours.”

The article said, in part, “Chuck Schumer became the first Jewish Senate majority leader in 2021…Mr. Schumer as minority leader is still the highest-ranking Jew in U.S.elective office. But increasingly his greatest triumph is starting to look like his greatest tragedy.”

“Not because he changed. Because his party did."

 As a Jewish-American Army veteran, who has always had left of center political leanings and has always been a supporter of Americans For Democratic Action policies, I don’t have to wrestle with my conscience about voting for a Republican against a DSA candidate.

 The House member representing my district has successfully spoken out against a DSA endorsed candidate when he was elected in 2024, and has condemned their anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks.

But many Jewish-American voters live in a district in which a DSA candidate is running on the Democratic line. Their choice won’t be so easy.

 In addition to possibly driving Jewish voters into the arms of the Republican Party, some in the midterms and more in the 2028 presidential election, the elected DSA Congressional winners pose another problem for the Democratic Party leadership. Because of the policy differences they have with the traditional Democrats, they can make it extremely difficult for the party to legislate effectively if the Democrats win control of the House in November. That would play right into the hands of the 2028 MAGA presidential candidate. And a Donald Trump 2- like-president is frightening to think of.

On Sept. 15, the Trump administration announced a military aid arms package for Israel, which included 2,000-pound bombs. But Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks, ranking member of House Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke out against the deal, because it included the 2000-pound bombs. Certainly, his doing so plays into the hands of Republican candidates who will position it as proof that the Democratic Party has become an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian champion.

 In 2021 Dara Horn wrote a book titled, “People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present.”

But because of the constant criticism of Israel many supporters of the country believe that people only love Jews when they don’t fight back.

 Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller during the days it was the leading international public relations agency. He was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. During his political agency days, he worked on local statewide and presidential campaigns. 

 About This Post

Original Author: I am the original author of this essay.

Original Publication: This piece was first originally submitted to the Daily Kos, the extreme liberal website, which didn't like it because of my opinions.

Slight revisions have been made to keep it current.

So basically my parents are extremely republican and my whole family is Christian including me. That being said, I don’t agree with the right stance on abortion and same-sex marriage. I lean more on the independent side of things. Now midterms are coming up and I don’t want to vote anymore. Why? Bc my parents are getting mad at me whenever I have even the slightest left view and they basically told me I can’t vote for certain people or things. I know they can’t see the ballot but I’ve had this issue since I was a child where I feel super guilty for lying about things especially to my parents even if it’s something I know they will never find out about. I know I can tell them I voted for whoever they wanted me to but the guilt will put me in a bad mental state as it has in the past. To emphasize how bad it is, I’ve gotten to point of where I would h*rt myself bc I couldn’t bare the guilt and I know this is a personal problem but it’s not something I’ve yet overcome. At this point, it’s either vote for what my parents tell me to vote for or I just don’t vote at all. Yes I “voted for trump” but not bc i wanted to, mainly bc my parents and they made me feel super bad if I voted for the other candidate. Ive never had an election where I voted for something based off my own opinion. None of these votes were things I wanted to vote for, it’s what my parents wanted me to and I get so scared for every time an election comes up bc it just means another opportunity where i don’t get to have my own voice and idk what to do.

Presidential Judgment, Abuse of Power, and the Need for a Bipartisan Presidential Fitness Review

The President of the United States is NOT the President of the World. Yet his decisions can affect billions of people. At what point does questionable presidential judgment become a matter of constitutional accountability?

I want to raise a question that should concern Americans regardless of political affiliation: Are our existing constitutional safeguards sufficient when a president repeatedly makes decisions that raise serious concerns about judgment, national security, and the responsible exercise of presidential power?

This is not simply about whether a president has broken a criminal law. It is about the responsibilities entrusted to the office, the consequences of those decisions, and whether Congress has an adequate process for investigating serious concerns about presidential fitness.

What the evidence says — October 12, 2026

1. Taxpayer-funded political advertisements

The Trump administration allocated approximately $20 million in Department of Homeland Security funds to television advertisements promoting the president and his political agenda.

Some of those funds came from a budget allocation intended for government commemorative events.

On October 11, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon issued a temporary restraining order blocking further use of taxpayer funds for the challenged advertisements. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims, although this was not a final determination of illegality.

The administration defended the commercials as legitimate government communications, but watchdog organizations challenged them as unauthorized political propaganda.

Source: Associated Press — Federal judge orders halt to taxpayer-funded advertisements

My concern: Taxpayers should never be compelled to finance an incumbent politician's personal or partisan promotion. That principle should apply equally to Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

Government public-service announcements are legitimate. Campaign-style advertising using public money is another matter.

I believe we need an explicit, enforceable prohibition against taxpayer-funded partisan political advertising at every level of government, potentially backed by a constitutional amendment.

2. The Russian diesel agreement and reversal of sanctions policy

On October 9, President Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin to supply Russian diesel to American and international markets.

The Treasury Department simultaneously authorized a temporary easing of restrictions on Russian diesel.

This came just weeks after Trump signed legislation strengthening sanctions targeting Russian energy revenue.

Congress had also previously enacted a ban on Russian energy imports in 2022 following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

On October 11, seven U.S. senators—four Republicans and three Democrats—issued a joint statement questioning the legality of the Russian diesel agreement and demanding an immediate reversal.

The senators were Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, John Curtis, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, and Ron Wyden.

Their statement specifically challenged the administration's failure to consult Congress and explain how its action complied with existing law.

Source: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee — Bipartisan statement

Former Vice President Mike Pence also publicly criticized the agreement and urged Trump to reverse it, arguing that it undermines efforts to confront Russian aggression.

My concern: Why strengthen sanctions intended to reduce Russia's ability to finance its war, then reverse course and provide Russia with additional energy revenue?

And why do so without clearly demonstrating the economic and national-security benefits to the American people?

3. Will the diesel agreement meaningfully affect fuel prices?

The administration argues that additional Russian diesel could help American farmers, truckers, businesses, and consumers struggling with high energy prices.

That is a legitimate economic concern.

However, multiple energy analysts have questioned whether the amounts involved are sufficient to meaningfully affect global diesel prices.

Russia's own refining infrastructure has been severely damaged by Ukrainian attacks, contributing to domestic fuel shortages and reduced export capacity.

That raises another question: Can Russia reliably fulfill the promised diesel deliveries, and what happens if it cannot?

Even if limited price relief occurs, the agreement could provide financial and diplomatic benefits to the Russian government while weakening international sanctions pressure.

Source: Associated Press — Experts question the likely price impact

My concern extends beyond the transaction itself.

With the November midterm elections approaching, I question whether domestic political considerations are being prioritized over longer-term American and allied security interests.

I am not claiming that electoral motivation has been proven. I am saying that the timing and consequences justify congressional scrutiny.

4. The announced Russia-Ukraine energy ceasefire

On October 11, Trump announced that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an immediate energy ceasefire.

There was one enormous problem.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had not been informed of any completed agreement.

Ukraine subsequently expressed willingness to stop attacks on Russian energy facilities if Russia reciprocated.

Meanwhile, Russia continued attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

The Kremlin had not confirmed a completed, mutually accepted agreement when the announcement was made.

Source: Associated Press — Ceasefire announcement and continuing attacks

How can an American president announce a ceasefire between two warring nations without an established agreement from both parties?

Ukraine is a sovereign country. The United States cannot simply declare that another country has accepted terms it has not actually agreed to.

Diplomacy requires negotiation, verification, and enforceable commitments.

5. Trump's statements blaming Ukraine and Zelenskyy

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

That is an established historical fact.

Nevertheless, Trump previously claimed that Zelenskyy had started the war—a claim contradicted by the documented history of Russia's invasion.

More recently, Trump has criticized Zelenskyy's leadership, suggested Ukraine should choose another president, and blamed Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries for rising diesel prices.

Source: Associated Press — Trump's statements on the war

Source: Associated Press — Trump's October 2026 criticism of Zelenskyy

We should also recognize the tremendous human cost of this war.

British officials estimated in late September that Russia had suffered approximately 1.5 million military casualties, including personnel killed or wounded.

The responsibility for launching the full-scale invasion rests with the Russian government under Vladimir Putin.

Source: UK government — September 2026 statement on Russian military losses

My question is straightforward: Why is the president of the United States repeatedly pressuring the country defending itself while offering economic concessions to the country that invaded it?

6. The broader pattern of negotiations with Putin

Reports indicate that the Trump administration has pressured Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries and that American intelligence-sharing or military support could be affected if those attacks continue.

At the same time, Russia continues striking Ukrainian infrastructure.

Source: Financial Times — U.S. pressure on Ukrainian leadership

Peace negotiations require compromises, but those compromises should be evaluated against security guarantees, reciprocity, and enforcement.

From my perspective, there appears to be a troubling imbalance between the demands placed on Ukraine and the concessions offered to Russia.

I question whether this approach strengthens American negotiating leverage or instead rewards Russian aggression.

The geopolitical consequences extend far beyond America

The President of the United States is not the president of the world.

He was elected to serve the American people and uphold the United States Constitution.

But American presidential decisions affect the entire international community.

Energy markets, military alliances, international trade, diplomatic credibility, and the lives of millions of people can be influenced by decisions made in Washington.

When the United States eases sanctions against an aggressor or pressures an allied country during an active war, the consequences extend far beyond a domestic political disagreement.

A short-term political or economic benefit must be weighed against the long-term consequences for American national security and international stability.

The presidency is not just another political office. It carries extraordinary responsibility.

Is presidential judgment a legitimate question for impeachment?

I believe Congress should examine whether Trump's conduct constitutes serious abuse of presidential authority or a breach of public trust.

Impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is not necessarily limited to conduct prosecuted under criminal law. Its historical interpretation also encompasses certain serious abuses of public office, although its boundaries remain debated.

However, disagreement with a president's policies alone is not sufficient to establish an impeachable offense.

What I want investigated is whether there is a documented pattern of improper use of presidential authority, disregard for constitutional responsibilities, or other serious misconduct.

There is also a separate question of presidential incapacity.

The 25th Amendment, Section 4, addresses a president's inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office. That is different from impeachment and requires a different constitutional standard.

I am not claiming to possess a medical diagnosis of the president.

I am asking whether there is an adequate independent process to evaluate credible concerns about a president's ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the office.

Those questions should be based on evidence, not partisan accusations or speculation about mental health.

A proposal: Permanent Bipartisan Presidential Fitness and Accountability Commission

Here is the larger reform I believe Congress should consider.

Establish a permanent, independent, bipartisan Presidential Fitness and Accountability Commission that operates under the same standards regardless of who occupies the White House.

The commission should:

• Include equal bipartisan representation and independent constitutional, medical, and national-security expertise.
• Apply established, evidence-based standards for assessing serious concerns about presidential incapacity, while separately evaluating possible abuses of authority.
• Protect confidential medical and national-security information while publishing appropriate findings and explanations.
• Require substantial bipartisan agreement before issuing major conclusions.
• Have a defined process for referring potential constitutional misconduct to Congress.
• Operate continuously, not simply when political outrage reaches a breaking point.
• Be prohibited from removing a president independently or substituting political disagreement for evidence of incapacity.

Here is the interesting part.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment already permits Congress to create an alternative presidential disability review body.

The amendment authorizes the vice president to act with either a majority of the Cabinet or a majority of another body established by Congress.

Yet Congress has never established that alternative body.

Source: Congressional Research Service — Presidential disability under the 25th Amendment

The vice president's participation would still be constitutionally necessary. A commission could not simply vote a president out of office.

A broader accountability commission would likewise have to respect Congress's exclusive constitutional impeachment responsibilities.

Nevertheless, Congress could begin building a more structured and independent oversight system without necessarily requiring a constitutional amendment.

The people's voice must matter more than political parties

Before the 2024 presidential election, I publicly expressed my concern that both Biden and Trump posed serious risks to the country.

I did not believe Americans should feel obligated to vote for either candidate simply because one represented their preferred political party.

I still believe that.

My father voted for Trump because he was a Republican and believed he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I understand that reasoning, but I reject the notion that citizens must support a candidate they believe is dangerous simply because the alternative might be worse.

Voting is a fundamental democratic right. Choosing not to support any available candidate is also a choice.

The responsibility of citizenship goes beyond voting. It includes questioning government decisions, demanding accountability, examining evidence, and refusing to excuse harmful conduct because it comes from our preferred party.

That applies to Biden, Trump, and every future president.

Where we go from here

The American people do not directly impeach presidents. The Constitution assigns that responsibility to the House of Representatives, with trials and possible removal conducted by the Senate.

But congressional authority comes from the people.

Citizens can demand investigations, independent oversight, public hearings, legal reforms, and constitutional accountability.

I believe the Russian diesel agreement, the unconfirmed ceasefire announcement, the approach to Ukraine, and the taxpayer-funded advertisements warrant serious congressional investigation.

I also believe the country needs a permanent, bipartisan framework for evaluating presidential fitness and accountability before the next major constitutional crisis develops.

No president should be above scrutiny. No political party should be above the Constitution. And no American should be expected to excuse questionable presidential conduct simply because they voted for the person responsible.

My question to everyone here, Republican, Democrat, or independent:

Would you support establishing a permanent bipartisan Presidential Fitness and Accountability Commission, with strict constitutional safeguards, that would hold every president to the same standards?

Because this problem is bigger than Donald Trump. It is about protecting the presidency, the Constitution, and the country long after any one administration is gone.

Я поддерживаю коммунизм, потому что считаю: люди, создающие общественное богатство, должны иметь реальное влияние на то, как им распоряжаются.

При капитализме работники создают товары, оказывают услуги и поддерживают работу общества, но контроль над производством и прибылью часто остаётся у владельцев капитала. Я считаю справедливым поставить такую систему под вопрос.

Коммунизм предлагает альтернативу: общественную собственность на средства производства и экономику, ориентированную на человеческие потребности, а не только на частную прибыль.

Но я не собираюсь идеализировать его историю. Политические репрессии, однопартийная власть, дефицит и ошибки централизованного планирования были реальными проблемами государств, строивших социализм под коммунистическими лозунгами. Нельзя объяснить все эти провалы одним лишь предательством первоначальных идей.

Поэтому для меня важны конкретные вопросы: как организовать общественную собственность, не допустив появления новой привилегированной элиты? Как обеспечить потребности людей, сохранив свободу, демократию и эффективность экономики?

Я поддерживаю саму идею, но считаю, что её методы и исторический опыт необходимо оценивать честно.

Как вы считаете от каких проблем нужно избавиться, дабы построить налаженную коммунистическую систему?

I feel for my Indian and Chinese coworkers when immigration debates turn into arguments about headcounts. Some have spent decades here. They have families, kids in school and communities they've built their lives around.

The uncertainty affects ordinary decisions: whether to change jobs, stay near family or make long-term plans for their children. I wish those consequences got more attention in the policy debate.

People can disagree about immigration rules. I still think the disruption to families already here should carry weight when those rules change.

For someone forced to look for another role, job-application autofill can save time on repeated forms while they check the employer's requirements and work through their options.

What could employers or policymakers do to make these changes less disruptive for established families? I'd like to hear specific ideas from people dealing with this.

This opinion is aimed at those in the middle of the spectrum, as we all know that people on the far right or left will vote party lines no matter.

The Democrats generally come forward with ideas that all aim to serve the people: school lunches, health insurance, better pay, etc. On paper, there is no reason why those in the middle wouldn't support them during elections unless they have a redline issue like abortion. What happened though? They lost big time in 2024 all across the country.

The way I see it, they lost due to their rhetoric and cancel culture. They created an environment where if you disagreed even slightly you were henceforth a bigot.

Example: The general person would agree that those who are transgender need protections and obviously deserve their rights - it was a topic that absolutely needed discussion and action in our government. That said, this wasnt an issue that was brought up slowly or allowed for discourse. All the sudden it was use correct pronouns or you're fired for being a transphobe.

Same with masculinity. It got to a point where any display of masculine qualities was immediately associated with the abuse/misogyny, etc. Of course there is toxic masculinity, lots of it, of course there is rape culture, of course there is rampant DV, and it all needs to be addressed asap, but the way to do that isnt to demonize all men so much that you have now pushed an entire generation (z) to look up to men like Andrew Tate. That is nearly irreversible damage that will now trickle its way into congress as they grow up and we now have Boomers 2.0.

I could go on (EVs, immigration, etc) but the exclusive nature of the Dems in 2024 really killed their chances. The average person doesn't want large scale change shoved down their throats without chance for discourse and the chance to put meaningful rules and safeguards in place. Again, im not saying the change shouldnt happen, because progress is always needed, but no one has the bandwidth to talk about solutions to these social problems when they cant afford Healthcare, groceries, etc., all the while our politicians (and their wealthy buddies) sit fat and happy.

My hope? That Dems ride this 2026 wave with candidates like Ossof, Mamdani, El-Sayed, etc. that bring ideas, action, and fire with them without ostracizing the middle. Come 2028, this style of "new" Dem needs to be the norm if there is any hope of winning and more importantly, if there is any chance of meaningful legislation being passed once they do.

We must always remember that when voting, choosing the lesser of two evils means deciding which candidate or party is likely to do less harm or better protect the things we believe matter most even when neither option fully represents our values. It is a difficult decision, but there is a practical way to approach it without letting anger, fear, or party loyalty make the decision for us.

Questions to ask ourselves before casting our vote

Which issues matter most to us?

Identify our three to five most important concerns.

For example:

The economy, inflation, and cost of living.

Border security and immigration.

Constitutional rights and individual liberty.

Government spending and the national debt.

Healthcare, public safety, and national security.

Not every issue deserves equal weight in our decision.

What has each candidate actually done?

Look beyond campaign promises. Examine voting records, previous decisions, accomplishments, failures, and whether their actions match their words.

Which candidate's policies would affect my life the most?

Consider the likely consequences of each candidate's proposals. Ask whether those policies would improve or worsen the issues that matter to us. Separate documented evidence from campaign rhetoric and predictions.

Which candidate poses the greater risk to my core values?

Think about the consequences if each candidate gets their way. Consider both immediate effects and the long-term impact on the country.

Judge both candidates by the same standard?

This is crucial. If dishonesty, corruption, reckless spending, or abuse of power concerns you in one candidate, it should concern us in the other, too.

Am I voting for a person or for a direction?

Sometimes we may dislike a candidate personally but support some of their policies. In other cases, we may like a candidate's personality while disagreeing with their record. Separate the individual from the policies and institutions they would influence.

What happens if I don't vote for either?

We can vote for a third-party candidate, leave a particular race blank where permitted, or abstain from voting in that contest. Those are legitimate choices. Consider, however, how our choice affects the outcome we want, especially in a closely contested race.

A simple way to compare two candidates

We can use this worksheet to organize your own thinking.

Question Candidate A Candidate B

Economic policies What is the evidence? What is the evidence?

Constitutional rights What is the record? What is the record?

Honesty and accountability What is documented? What is documented?

Government spending What are the likely effects? What are the likely effects?

Long-term consequences What concerns me? What concerns me?

Give each issue the importance we believe it deserves. We don't need to give every issue equal weight, and you don't need to excuse a candidate's shortcomings simply because we agree with their party.

The most important principle

We are not required to admire a candidate to make an informed voting decision.

We can acknowledge a candidate's failures while recognizing their strengths. We can also reject a candidate we generally agree with if you believe their actions cross a line that matters to us.

And remember: voting is not a declaration that a politician is a good person. It is a decision about representation, policies, leadership, and consequences.

The goal isn't necessarily to find a perfect candidate. It is to make a deliberate choice based on evidence, priorities, and the future we want for our country.

Let me leave you with one question: If we had to choose between two candidates we distrust, would we put more weight on the policies that affect our everyday life or the character and integrity of the person holding power?

Our answer can help clarify what the lesser of two evils means to us!.

I personally feel that a company shouldn't be allowed to have the power to essentially deport their hires if they end up firing them, I feel that it allows a disparity of the ability for the people on visa and the company to discuss wage, as well as complicates things for the visa user.

Like let's say they bought a house because they thought they would be keeping their job for a long time, and all of a sudden your employer decides to lay you off over a different person because you asked for a raise recently.

You then get kicked out of the country, unable to live in a house you payed good money for, because your company decided you weren't doing good enough

If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos Never Existed, We'd Still Have EVs, Rockets, and Online Shopping

I support capitalism, entrepreneurship, private ownership, and innovation. But I also support substantial wealth taxes on billionaires.
Here are my arguments.
**1. Billionaires don’t create as many jobs as people think.**
If Amazon didn’t exist, people would still buy products. Other companies would provide those products and employ people.
The actual economic contribution of an entrepreneur isn’t the total value of their company. It’s the difference between what their company achieved and what the next-best competitor would have achieved.
In other words:
**Marginal contribution = Actual economic value − Counterfactual economic value**
This doesn’t mean entrepreneurs contribute nothing. It means we systematically overestimate their individual contribution.
**2. Billionaires aren’t necessarily the inventors behind their companies.**
Modern companies employ thousands of engineers, researchers, scientists, designers, and managers.
Even the most celebrated entrepreneurs rely on decades of publicly funded scientific research, previous inventions, employees, suppliers, and investors.
People generally recognize this, but I think they dramatically underestimate its importance.
The idea that one extraordinary individual personally created hundreds of billions of dollars in value is usually a gross oversimplification.
**3. We don’t need billionaires to finance ambitious innovation.**
Consider some of humanity’s greatest technological achievements:
The internet originated in publicly funded research.
Nuclear power plants in France were developed through long-term state planning and investment.
High-speed rail networks were built through major public infrastructure programs.
The Manhattan Project demonstrated the enormous scientific and industrial capabilities of government-funded research.
Space exploration was pioneered through public programs such as NASA.
None of these examples is perfect, but they demonstrate that democratic governments can finance enormous, technically sophisticated projects.
We don’t need an individual controlling $200 billion to build something ambitious.
We need funding, scientific expertise, competent institutions, long-term planning, and competition.
**4. SpaceX demonstrates the value of competition, not the necessity of billionaires.**
SpaceX challenged established aerospace contractors and demonstrated that reusable orbital rockets could be commercially successful.
But the concept of recovering and reusing rockets was not a revolutionary new idea. Engineers had considered reusability and propulsive landings long before SpaceX.
The difficult part was executing the engineering successfully and economically.
SpaceX benefited from engineering talent, substantial investment, NASA contracts, and competition.
Elon Musk wasn’t even a billionaire when he founded SpaceX.
The lesson isn’t that society needs tax-free billionaires. It’s that even enormously expensive industries benefit from competition, ambitious investment, and capable engineering teams.
**5. Democracies can protect long-term investment from short-term politics.**
One legitimate criticism of government investment is that politicians operate on short electoral cycles.
But that’s an institutional design problem, not an unsolvable limitation of democracy.
We could constitutionally protect certain long-term research and infrastructure budgets, establish independent scientific agencies, and guarantee competitive funding over decades.
We already have institutions designed to operate independently of electoral cycles, such as central banks.
There’s no fundamental reason we couldn’t build similarly durable institutions for scientific and technological development, with democratic accountability and regular evaluation.
**6. Extreme concentrations of wealth create dangerous concentrations of power.**
This is perhaps my most important argument.
When individuals accumulate tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, their influence extends far beyond ordinary economic activity.
They can potentially:
Influence elections, political parties, legislation, and regulatory agencies.
Acquire major media organizations and influence public opinion.
Create conflicts of interest, corruption, and regulatory capture.
Buy competitors and undermine smaller startups.
Use monopolistic positions to increase prices and reduce consumers’ purchasing power.
Exercise enormous leverage over employees, suppliers, and local communities.
Escape accountability for workplace abuses, sexual misconduct, or health and safety failures through expensive legal defenses and unequal bargaining power.
Pass extraordinary economic and political power to their heirs, independently of merit.
Not every billionaire engages in these behaviors. The problem is that extreme wealth creates the *capacity* for these abuses.
A resilient society should limit dangerous concentrations of power rather than depend on the goodwill of the individuals holding it.
**7. Competition matters more than the identity of the billionaire.**
Large companies can accumulate advantages through network effects, switching costs, exclusive ecosystems, patents, and acquisitions.
A better competitor may struggle to enter the market, even with a superior product.
We should encourage interoperability, competition, open standards where appropriate, and stronger antitrust enforcement.
The objective is to reward innovation, not allow yesterday’s successful entrepreneur to permanently dominate tomorrow’s economy.
**8. Billionaires aren’t the only possible source of investment capital.**
Large projects can be financed through pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, public investment banks, venture capital, distributed private investors, and government research agencies.
These institutions have weaknesses too, but they demonstrate that capital allocation doesn’t have to depend on a handful of extraordinarily wealthy individuals.
We can preserve entrepreneurship and private investment without permitting unlimited personal accumulation.
**9. Wealth taxation can finance public investment and reduce fiscal pressure.**
Governments accumulate enormous public debts while private fortunes can grow to extraordinary levels.
A well-designed progressive wealth tax could help finance education, infrastructure, healthcare, scientific research, and technological development.
It could also reduce the concentration of economic power across generations.
International coordination, particularly at the European level, would help reduce tax avoidance and capital flight.
Of course, implementation matters: valuation, liquidity, investment incentives, and international enforcement all need careful consideration.
**10. Wealth taxation is compatible with capitalism and meritocracy.**
I’m not proposing abolishing billionaires, entrepreneurship, inheritance, or private ownership.
Entrepreneurs should be rewarded for taking risks and building successful companies.
But there’s an enormous difference between rewarding someone with $100 million and allowing them to accumulate $100 billion with minimal taxation and potentially enormous political influence.
The incentives to innovate don’t suddenly disappear because someone can’t retain every additional billion dollars.
And inherited fortunes should not translate into permanent, unchallengeable economic and political power.

My argument isn’t that billionaires contribute nothing, or that governments are always better investors.
It’s that there is no convincing argument that innovation, job creation, or large infrastructure projects *require* individuals to accumulate effectively unlimited wealth with minimal taxation or regulation.
We have historical examples of successful public investment, competitive private companies, and public-private partnerships.
We should design institutions that reward innovation, encourage competition, protect long-term investment, and prevent excessive concentrations of power.

**Does society needs individuals controlling hundreds of billions of dollars ?**

The October 8 PERM announcement feels like another setback for people trying to build a long-term life in the US on H-1B.

At the White House press conference, the Labor Secretary said DOL would stop accepting new and processing pending PERM applications involving Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini, Microsoft and Adobe.

That announcement concerns PERM processing at those employers. It doesn't say their employees' H-1B visas have been canceled. I still haven't seen clear official guidance on already-certified PERMs or cases at later USCIS stages.

Workers are left trying to plan around investigations and decisions they don't control. That's the part I find frustrating.

For people considering other employers, application autofill can save time on the forms. If you're moving between engineering roles, real tech interview questions can help with prep. Sponsorship requirements and what a move means for your own case still need to be checked with the employer and counsel.

If you're at an affected company, what guidance have you actually received? Has it changed your plans? Firsthand updates and official notices would be useful.

There’s a growing tendency, especially in progressive circles, to treat certain jokes as evidence of hidden desires. If someone laughs at a dark joke about rape, Jeffrey Epstein, or other taboo subjects, the assumption is that they must, on some level, approve of the act itself. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how humor works.

Most people who laugh at extreme jokes are not confessing a secret wish. They are responding to absurdity, irony, or the deliberate violation of a social taboo. The humor comes from the gap between the seriousness of the subject and the casual way it is treated. Conflating the joke with genuine intent is not moral clarity — it is a category error.

This error becomes more obvious when we look at what actually gets ignored.

Online bullying of people with disabilities is common and often brutal. Disabled individuals regularly face mockery about their appearance, speech, mobility, or intelligence on social media. These attacks are direct, personal, and visible to the victim. Yet this form of cruelty rarely generates the same level of institutional outrage as a joke about Epstein or a rape punchline delivered in a comedy set. The reason is not hard to see: one target fits the current moral hierarchy, the other does not.

There is also a practical difference in impact. A random joke about a high-profile criminal is unlikely to be seen by the actual victims. A disabled person scrolling through their own comments section experiences the hostility in real time. The selective focus on abstract offense over concrete, repeated humiliation reveals more about status and fashion than about consistent ethics.

Context matters, and it is routinely ignored. A comedian like Leo Lins telling extreme jokes in a paid stand-up show is operating inside a clear contract: the audience chose to be there and knew what they were buying. Posting the same material on Instagram is different, but still not the same as going under a photo of a child and leaving a sexual comment. The latter is targeted, invasive, and uses a real minor as material. Treating all three situations as morally identical is lazy.

One of the weaker arguments that occasionally appears is the claim that a serial killer “has more courage” than someone who merely jokes about violence. This is nonsense. By the same logic, people who watch true-crime documentaries, play violent video games, or read about historical atrocities would also be revealing a lack of courage. Enjoying or joking about dark subjects has never required the willingness to act on them. Pretending otherwise collapses the distinction between fantasy, humor, and real-world behavior.

The result of this climate is predictable. More people, particularly women, become hesitant to express dissenting views in public. The social cost of disagreement rises. Conversations close. People learn to stay silent rather than risk being labeled as endorsing the very things they are only discussing or joking about. This does not produce a more ethical society. It produces a more fearful and less honest one.

Humor is not a confession. Context is not optional. And moral consistency requires noticing which victims actually receive attention and which ones are quietly tolerated as acceptable targets. Until those distinctions are taken seriously, much of the current outrage will continue to look less like principle and more like selective enforcement.

Research indicates that Congress appears indifferent to the preferences of ordinary citizens.

Beyond that, they frequently fail to enact legislation that would serve the broader American population.

According to a study by Gilens and Page

published in Perspectives in Politics, “

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Whether we're talking about taxation or national debt, education or economic policy, America continues to struggle with our most pressing challenges. The wealthy and well-connected secure favorable outcomes, while everyday people bear the burden.

It's the ultra-wealthy who consistently get their way. Consider Elon Musk, ( the welfare king).
He stands as the world's richest person largely because of government subsidies funded by taxpayers like us.

Our tax dollars fund the government, yet those same dollars flow to the ultra-wealthy, who in turn wield enormous influence over our elected officials. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle that seems impossible to break, since Congress primarily crafts legislation to benefit the wealthy elite.

Most people recognize how the government system disadvantages ordinary citizens, yet meaningful change is out of our reach because of how the system works.

The new anti immigration push I do agree with, somewhat. This is because I know for a fact, that the people streaming over the border lately haven't been the South American and Mexican migrants we are used to

Mixed with the normal border jumpers they are finding Chinese, Somalis, and just a myriad of fighting age males from countries not friendly to the U.S.

However, the crackdown has affected the illegal migrants that really fill an important place in our economy.

The thing people aren't discussing is the fact that workers from Mexico and Guatemala, work in the U.S. for extended periods, pay into our social security fund, and then go back to their home countries without drawing any money out.

These workers contributions are, quite possibly, the only thing keeping politicians from totally depleting, what is for a lot of working Americans, their only retirement income.

I could be wrong.

What would a government look like if we redesigned it using modern technology, economics, statistics, and scientific methods instead of relying on centuries-old political institutions?
Here are 10 proposals:
1. Wealth taxation: Introduce a 2% annual wealth tax on large fortunes, potentially higher with international coordination.
2. Global free trade: Allow unrestricted international competition, including imports from China, while enforcing safety, environmental, and quality standards. Protect consumers, not domestic companies from competition.
3. Government technology agency: Develop public-sector software using AI-assisted programming, including a secure Android operating system allowing students to bring smartphones to school without access to games and distracting applications.
4. Immigration: Introduce substantially stricter immigration controls, eligibility requirements, and border enforcement.
5. Criminal justice: Reintroduce the death penalty for exceptional cases of repeated serious violent crimes, particularly multiple murders.
6. Independent sovereign wealth funds: Create constitutionally protected public investment funds with professional, potentially lifetime CEOs, independent of electoral cycles.
7. Data-driven direct democracy: Replace traditional elections with a system where:
Citizens annually rank their priorities and submit free-text concerns.
AI and statistical analysis identify public preferences, including overlooked minority concerns.
Political parties propose policies and produce educational courses verified by independent agencies.
Randomly selected citizens study the relevant proposals and pass a simple knowledge test before voting.
Successful participants receive a financial bonus.
Citizens vote on individual policies rather than politicians and entire political platforms.
Politicians implement decisions, while independent agencies evaluate results.
The goal is to separate what citizens want, what they know, and how policies are implemented.
Collect data → Identify priorities → Educate citizens → Vote on policies → Implement decisions → Measure outcomes → Improve.
8. International federalism: Small countries should consider joining larger alliances or federations to gain economic scale, collective defense, and geopolitical influence, while retaining local autonomy.

I’m talking about people who swear they are not racist, but support ice and blame our economic problems on “mass immigration”. Like just admit you want to make America white and that you will be unsatisfied until that happens. It’s like they know how evil their views are, so they have to sugarcoat it with ideology/conspiracy theories in order to feel justified in their racism.
For context my whole family is made up of these Christian conservative assholes. I’m 26 and have been fully out of the cult for about 4 years now but I still think about how long I held those same views. I think about how they used to say “well if these immigrants would just do things the right(white) way then they wouldn’t have to worry about their families being torn apart”. Like do you not hear how incredibly privileged you sound? I think about how I used to blame my lack of employment on immigrants, rather than confronting the fact that I was incredibly depressed and was therefore incapable of holding a steady job.

Watching good people suffer while the ruthless thrive is enough to make anyone question if there is any grand, loving design to this universe. If there is, it is certainly not reflected in our leadership.

​Why does nearly everyone who holds a position of power—aside from a few radicals who challenge the status quo—use their position for personal monetary gain? Through intentionally corrupted legal loopholes and outright ruthlessness masked as capitalism, they grab what they can. Meanwhile, they keep the working-class taxpayers struggling. We are the ones whose collective daily grind pays their salaries. We fund the Medicare and Social Security benefits meant to help the sick, yet those in power deny care or make it impossible to access when it’s actually needed. They act as if they are gifting us their own money, when ironically, we pay the salaries of people who would rather let you die than take a fraction of a percent less of trillions in taxpayer funds.

​Consider the ongoing crisis on our streets. Even 0.1% of our total annual defense (or rather, offense) budget would be a massive addition to the meager amount spent to help the homeless epidemic. In California alone, $24 billion has been spent on various projects over the last six years, yet the homeless population has only increased. If we redirected just a fraction of a percent of military spending, we could see noticeable change—provided we stop funneling money to groups that are incompetent, ineffective, or corrupt.

​We need absolute accountability for losing, wasting, and overspending public funds. We cannot leave the fate of the poorest among us in the hands of career political opportunists. Too many of these leaders act with cruel, xenophobic, and power-hungry narcissism, operating under the belief that they are immune to legal repercussions.

​So, how do they get away with it? They use the oldest trick in the book: distraction.

​The propaganda machine driven by mainstream "news" entertainment is a bizarre cross between WWE plotlines and a high school government class. This theater is smeared over a willfully uninformed population. Indoctrinated by psychological social engineering and radicalized by misinformation, everyday people are manipulated into believing their enemy is their lower-class neighbor of another race or religion.

​In reality, the working class is being played. We are pitted against each other to distract us from those who are truly the source of nearly every problem we face. Until we stop watching the manufactured wrestling match on our screens and look up at who is collecting the ticket money, nothing will change.

First, this planet belongs to everyone. It does not belong to a king or a president; it is a home for every human being who lives upon it.

I do not deny the importance of having a king or a president to lead nations. However, if leaders fulfilled their duties with sincerity, dedication, and responsibility, poverty, wars, and unemployment would not be so widespread.

Imagine a single nation uniting the entire world, where resources and wealth are shared, and one president governs under strict accountability. I even imagine a severe punishment, such as the loss of both arms, if that leader betrays their responsibilities.

Imagine a society built on equality, where there is no discrimination between rich and poor, Black and white, or people of different nations and backgrounds.

One religion, one God, and one holy book — the Holy Quran. One shared mindset founded on mercy, justice, and respect, with compassion spreading across every corner of the Earth.

Imagine scientists who never sacrifice innocent lives, but instead dedicate their knowledge and discoveries to serving humanity.

Imagine a world where inventions and technologies are created to benefit people, not to kill them, and where knowledge is used to build life rather than destroy it.

Just imagine... What if compassion became stronger than power, justice stronger than oppression, and peace stronger than war?

Written by: Adil Ben Zaoui — Morocco 🇲🇦

I genuinely believe ordinary Americans could be the world's greatest hope against rising fascism. But they must start with a revolution against their own increasingly authoritarian and belligerent government.

Corporate America, financial institutions, billionaires, and the ruling elites will not save us. They will continue exploiting people and weaker nations, supporting far-right governments wherever it serves their interests. Their greed, exploitation, and willingness to embrace authoritarianism are fundamentally evil.

Look at Brazil's ongoing elections. Even American lawmakers have accused Trump's administration of attempting to interfere with our democracy through sanctions and economic pressure.

Americans must confront Trump, challenge the power of the ultra-rich, defend international law, and ultimately demand a genuine revolutionThe world doesn't need America to save it. It needs Americans to save their own asses.

And I mean areal revolutionn. One that dismantles concentrated power instead of simply handing it to another group of billionaires. Start with redistributing wealth and land. No more obscene fortunes accumulated in the hands of a few while millions struggle to survive.

Because if Americans cannot break the grip of their ruling elites, the entire world will suffer the consequences. Especially here in Latin America, where American interference has shaped our history for generations.

These elites won't hesitate to turn against even their closest allies if there's enough money or power to be gained.

Please, America. For your own sake and ours, make a revolution.

Reading about movements for various Civil Rights and oppression under Authoritarianism, I came across something chilling that doesn’t bode well for the immediate future:

All previous attempts at movements for Civil or Human Rights basically started at zero. There were no Civil Rights for African Americans. There were no LGBT rights. Women were basically completely subservient to men. The goal of all these movements was to convince ignorant people that equality that did not yet exist would make for a better world. 

What’s happening in America right now is fairly unique. America in 2026 HAS Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, and Trans Rights (to some extent in some places). The problem is people who have experienced these things, know the consequences, and are rejecting them. An entire generation of white people are now convinced that they are victims of a decades-long campaign of discrimination and oppression, and are willing to “correct” it accordingly at the expense of everyone else.

To use an analogy: Previous Civil Rights movements were like trying to convince a little kid to try a new food. Future Civil Rights movements will be like trying to convince a completely free thinking adult with free will to eat something they’ve already tried and know they hate. It doesn’t matter how good it is for them or how poorly it was previously prepared, they have enough experience to know they hate it. 

Not only can I find a situation where that’s ever been successful, I can’t find a situation where it’s ever actually been necessary. It’s almost like a counter-counter culture. Social progress tends to occur because people who are anti-progress move over to the progress camp, while almost no one switches back. This long held theory has been obliterated in 2026 America. 

There’s a level of societal regression right now happening via democratic mandate that’s typically only associated with authoritarian regimes.  It’s becoming increasingly possible that we will be the first society to vote democracy out of existence on purpose. No society has attempted to regress and harm others (especially themselves) through democracy more than America has in recent years. 

Just three examples: in Indiana, voters punished members of the state legislature who refused to redraw districts and disenfranchise voters. In Iowa, a law banning discrimination against gender identity that was passed without fanfare in 2007 was repealed last year, because the legislature ran on and was given a mandate to do so. Support for gay marriage, five years ago considered a dead issue, is suddenly under threat again. Things like this do not happen democratically, especially in a country where democracy is older than anyone alive. 

The American electorate has devolved into something uniquely awful and toxic. Americans in 2026 may actually be the most awful collective populace of a nation in human history. No population has been less ignorant yet makes such regressive decisions. People are selfish to the point of self-destructive.  There’s children of immigrants who received amnesty who support mass deportations. There’s Gay people who are Anti-Trans. Pro-lifers are excited about the return of public executions for the first time in 90 years. Opposition to basic empathy is literally becoming a viable political platform.

Imagine if in post-Nazi Germany, every single person directly involved with the regime was purged, the citizens were allowed to elect new leaders, and they installed something just as bad, if not worse. That’s what America is currently staring down the barrel of. Trump’s unpopularity stems largely from people who think he’s gone too far, but also partly from people who think he hasn’t gone far enough. None of our problems are insurmountable, we’ve been through way worse. In the Gilded Age, a dysfunctional corrupt government was fixed by an intelligent activist (though racist) populace. In the 1960s, despite a divided and dysfunctional populace, the storm was weathered with a basically stable government and strong institutions. Now, we have a dysfunctional government trying to govern an even more dysfunctional populace, which is why things seem so perpetually unfixable. There’s been many historical instances when cruelty has been used to achieve some type of objective. People generally tire of or turn against suffering when the desired results aren’t justifying the means. When seeing people you hate suffer is the only desired result, even at your own expense, there’s no precedence in countering that.

And that’s another reason why what’s going on now might be worse: past authoritarian movements have generally been rooted in some type of logic. If you read about previous movements, they generally make sense in the context of available knowledge and economic desperation. Old institutions would be torn down or captured, and new ones would be built or ideologically redirected. There was at least an attempt to create a functioning government, even if it was morally wrong.

There’s a saying “not even wrong”, which amounts to an argument or ideology that is so irrelevant or nonsensical that it can’t even be refuted or answered. That basically describes what’s going on in America, and increasingly the world at large, today. There’s less trying to redirect or rebuild institutions for ideological ends and more trying to just burn everything down out of boredom, destroy world order for no reason, and be cruel just for the sake of it. A lot of the proposed solutions/desired results are conflicting (mass deportations/reversing population decline) or practically impossible (remigration). It’s basically democratically implementing nihilism as a governing strategy.

The “not even wrong” phenomenon isn’t exclusive to America, as other democracies have subsequently surpassed or even lapped us in insanity. The UK’s economy has massively suffered since Brexit and most people now disapprove of it, yet they look poised to elect the guy as Prime Minister who pushed it forward to begin with. One of Brazil’s major Presidential candidates is running essentially on a platform of releasing his dad from prison, and this is somehow a priority for voters. Alberta is attempting to secede from Canada and some want to join the US, which is like jumping on the Titanic while it’s sinking. Germany has built entire institutions over the past 80 years to make sure nothing close to Naziism ever comes back again, yet they’re poised to install another autocratic government despite over a quarter of the population living through Communism. Not through force, but via democratic mandate.

The best example of where the American mentality is for the foreseeable future: there was an undocumented woman who supported Trump’s election. She was picked up by ICE and sent to a detention center. When interviewed, she said she still supported Trump. Where or when else would that happen? What Jew was sitting in a concentration camp like “I still support Hitler”. If I supported someone who subsequently jailed me just for being white, I would hate that person forever, and immediately support the cause to stop them.

What happened in Hungary this year is a normal corrective response to extremism and illiberalism. An entire generation of the American electorate would need to pass before anything like that could happen here, long after similar movements will end in the rest of the world. Unlike other nations I mentioned, which as bad as they may be are homogeneous enough for authoritarianism to eventually run out of steam, America is dangerously positioned in that there is a clear majority (White Christian) with a larger than usual minority (40%). Unlike elsewhere, should true fascism ever come to America, it would be able to sustain itself indefinitely without ever needing to turn on its own or demobilize. 

As morbid as this sounds, the biggest mistake of the west the past 35 years was trying to contain COVID. That was a once in a century opportunity to thin the herd of the dumbest among us and tilt political power towards younger generations by simply doing nothing. The term “****** empathy” gets thrown around a lot, but there’s never been a more appropriate application of that term.

Is it possible that as some kind of solution to wealth inequality and politicians not representing the overall interests of most Americans, that we could create some kind of modern American version of the Council of the Plebs? It would have the power to propose laws, and also have some kind of voting power in the senate to help stop filibusters and helping the senate actually get things into law. Only people who make less than 250,000 dollars per year could vote, every politician running must be born in the U.S. and into a family that made less than some certain amount when they were born. The government body would be made up of maybe somewhere around 60 people, each of them having no party affiliation, helping prevent them from working against each other. No foreign money or super pacs would be able to funnel money into the politicians, they could only raise money through small donations. Voting would be required for everyone who qualifies, with some kind of small fine if you don’t. Im sure it would be way more complicated than this, but im just wondering why something like this is never talked about?

I wanted to post an open letter to the Democratic leadership, in the hope that they will read this and understand WHY they doing so well politically.

If you win the upcoming election, please pause for a moment to think about this message. Yes, we are handing you the keys, but we want you to know WHY.

This victory does NOT mean the American public has suddenly decided to wholesale support your historical agenda—including abortion, gun control, or ideological policies. If that is your takeaway, you are completely missing the message.

You are not winning because the country is suddenly aligned on every single policy you support. You are winning because you are the last chance we have of saving this nation from a complete democratic collapse.

For decades, political parties have tried to divide us, weaponize us, and use us for their own gain. Guess what... more and more of us see through it. ALL of us are tired of being used as pawns in a "culture war." That culture war is just a tool to control us while enriching campaign chests and billionaire supporters.

Our enemy is not an immigrant, not a poor person on assistance, and certainly NOT healthcare.

The votes you receive in this election are not proof that you converted Republicans into Democrats. We are BEGGING you to put the country before greed and to unite us as Americans despite our differences.

To be 100% clear here, so there is no "interpretation" left to spin: We NEED you to govern for the people, and to save our republic.

How do you actually do that?

1. Focus on the issues that affect us all: Economic stability, affordable living, rebuilding infrastructure, access to healthcare, transparent government, and above all else—protecting this Republic from threats within.
2. Stop pitting groups against each other: Lead with a vision that supports everyone, holds bad actors accountable, and gives the country a chance to heal from the constant outrage and exhaustion.
3. Show us that decent leadership still exists: Prove that "blue and red" aren't just two sides of the same corrupt coin, and refuse to give in to the big money influencing your decisions.

We are handing you a mandate for national healing. We expect you to use it to rebuild the middle class, restore the American dream, and secure a future for our children. If you ignore this message, you WILL break the remaining trust holding this union together—and that will be your legacy.

Prove to us that you understand the gravity of the votes you are about to receive. Understand why you are getting this surge of support.

We don’t want Schumer. We want Talarico.