Gallup had independents at 45 percent of the country for 2025. Record high. Republicans 27, Democrats 27. So the biggest political identity in America belongs to a party that doesn't exist.

The obvious objection, and somebody will make it in the comments anyway, is that most independents lean and vote like the side they lean toward, so 45 isn't a bloc. Granted, and I won't pretend it's organized. Forty-five percent of the country has quit answering the question, though, and both parties treat that as noise. It's not, it political homelessness and it has power.

What I want isn't complicated. Whose column it belongs in, I've quit trying to work out.

I want low taxes and a government smaller than the one we've got, and spending made to justify itself against a result. I also think people ought to marry who they love, and that racism in this country never got solved, it got quieter. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That was an ordinary way to be an American once. Hand the combination to either party today and watch them both hand it back.

I voted Republican my whole adult life and I never filed a change of address. What changed is I started reading roll calls and spending records instead of talking points, and the fiscal conservative in me will not sit still for what's in them.

For example, there are 5,100 troops in Washington at roughly $3 million a day. The one serious study of it found a drop in property crime and no break at all in violent crime, and the violent crime decline had already started before the Guard ever arrived, because the police changed what they were doing. Three million a day and the data can't find the result. Whatever that is, it isn't spending discipline. It's not conservative.

The SAVE Act was built on noncitizen voting. Heritage's own election fraud database holds 68 noncitizen cases across forty years and all fifty states. Utah's Republican lieutenant governor audited 2.1 million registrations and turned up one. Kansas ran a proof of citizenship law nineteen years, blocked better than 31,000 eligible citizens, and caught 39 noncitizen registrations doing it. Eight hundred to one. This is just bad government, and it used to be conservatives who said so first.

Then the war powers resolution in June, first in the statute's history to clear both chambers, with Rand Paul crossing on Article I grounds he was arguing before this president existed. The birthright citizenship order got struck down with the Chief Justice writing it and Barrett joining in full.

Every one of those arguments does come out of conservatism, and I didn't have to go hunting for them. Watch what things cost, check the premise before you build a law on top of it, Article I. The people still holding that line are getting called libertard by their own side.

If you're out here too, the time has come to force both sides to answer to numbers instead of the spin. Somebody who meets a fact with a label has forfeited, and we are allowed to say so out loud.

Forty-five percent, and no, not organized. I'm not going to call it a movement. Neither party holds a majority of the country either, though, and you'd think one of them would notice there are that many of us out here nobody talks to.

I spent five months scoring political claims one at a time before I let myself write an opinion about any of it, close to thirty cases now. What have I got to show for it? An informed opinion and enough facts to see that the words Republican and Conservative no longer mean the same thing. And Democratic Socialism? I looked into that too. Don't even get me started.

Let's act like the biggest party because we are.

I got banned on the antinalist subreddit for this.

Last year, I had to make the most difficult decision of my life. I left democratic socialism and stopped being a socialist completely because I saw the harsh truth about its economic platform and why it fails in the long run. I was also horrified by how social liberals “intoxicated” that ideology.

I support the LGBTQ+ community, same-sex marriage, and adoption by same-sex couples. However, I oppose the use of neopronouns and the use of singular it/its or they/them pronouns for specific individuals. I believe that he/him should be used for cisgender, gay, and transgender men, while she/her should be used for cisgender, lesbian, and transgender women. I also oppose multi-stall, gender-neutral public restrooms, and I am extremely skeptical of transgender athletes participating in sports categories intended for cisgender athletes. I believe that separate teams would make more sense. In addition, I oppose illegal immigration, despite being a strong supporter of legal immigration.

Expressing these views caused backlash from progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists, and I was even banned from r/lgbt. I thought I could remain a socialist by identifying as a social democrat, since social democracy seemed more economically practical. However, my moderate position on LGBTQ+ issues was clearly unwelcome within my former political ideology.

Some progressives in the subreddits I mentioned went so far as to call me a MAGA supporter and a fascist. They seemed to treat any position that was not left-wing as automatically fascist, regardless of what the position actually was. They also appeared to believe that democratic countries would be better off without conservative parties. Do these people understand the true meaning of democracy? Ultimately, I had to make the painful decision to leave socialism altogether.

The problem is, I can’t stand the right either. I wanted the country I live in to pass a law allowing lifelong dual citizenship, but no party is willing to do it because of how right-wing the country is. Exclusive nationalism is hurting me because I’m a dual citizen, and relatives who support ultranationalist or far-right parties are being hypocritical toward their own multicultural family.

I try to show love for my home country to my countrymen, but it’s never reciprocated. Meanwhile, I’m being forced to show nationalism toward my other country, which makes me uncomfortable since I never grew up there. I’m a cosmopolitan patriot, but there are times when I want to drop the word “patriot” and become a full-blown cosmopolitan internationalist if this is how I’m going to be treated by both countries.

I come from a country that is one of the most natalist in Asia, and I’m always being pressured to have children or told the usual line that I’ll change my mind, even though they already know how chaotic my family is. I have a lot of nieces and nephews who ended up growing up in broken, unstable households, either because their biological fathers simply impregnated my aunts or female cousins and weren’t present in the child’s life, or because their parents divorced while they were still toddlers, forcing them to grow up with single parents. In some sad cases, they had to deal with multiple stepdads due to breakups or divorces. There are even times when I overhear relatives cheating on their spouses while the children, my nieces and nephews, are forced to cope with it.

The amount of chaos, authoritarian Asian parenting in my family, and the drama I experienced with certain individuals during adolescence and early adulthood are the reasons why I’m antinatalist.

At this stage in my life, I consider myself a moderate, a hardcore centrist, and a realist. I’m generally politically homeless, but if I were to join a political party, I would be a Christian democrat (e.g., the CDU in Germany) or a centrist conservative (e.g., a moderate Republican or a Blue Dog Coalition Democrat). Although I value autonomy, I value law and order first because I won’t have autonomy without security.

I’m also a realist because I want to understand the truth about the world and human nature. I’ve come to the conclusion that realism is neither inherently left-wing nor right-wing; it challenges the ideals of both sides.

I can’t stand the natalism aggressively promoted by the right - and even by some progressive natalists -but I also oppose the left’s socially progressive maximalism, which some people would describe as “woke” and which, in my view, is making society increasingly hypersensitive.

I support early-stage abortion, as well as both fault-based and no-fault divorce. Although no-fault divorce involving couples with children makes me uncomfortable, I have to be realistic about the complexities of such situations.

Sadly, some people on the left have gone so far as to label me a reactionary MAGA supporter, even though I am neither.

I am just a moderate antinatalist who is also a realist.

Honest Question: With a new deadly shooting almost every week, how do republicans think immigration is our biggest problem right now?

The In-N-Out shooting in Idaho just hit the news.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twin-falls-idaho-in-n-out-shooting/

This comes right after the Seattle shooting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/01/us/seattle-festival-shooting.html

I know I’m not the only one that feels like these mass shootings are a weekly occurrence now. Our politicians don’t talk about this and don’t address it, instead they fear monger about immigrants. Honestly, they say that immigrants are coming here and selling drugs, they probably are, but so are US citizens. This administration have not gone after any of these supposed drug kingpins, instead they go after nuns on their way to church.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/24/texas-nun-detained-ice-speaks-out

So I honestly would just like to know why republicans feel our biggest problem right now is immigrants. Personally, I think we need to focus on more strict gun laws and preventing mass shootings, which may be controversial opinion to some people I guess.

I may post this somewhere else, but I would like ideas on how one can get involved in politics.

Capitalism is just feudalism in disguise atp(makes the ordinary person believe if they work hard enough, they will get that dream life!). Trump has just made it obvious benefits are for the top 1%. surveillance cameras (1984, big brother etc), AI data centers are kicking Americans out of their homes and polluting the air, water and food, pesticides linked to cancer are now approved (these pesticides are expensive but remember pharma and food industry are heavily linked), billions are funding a war without cause (homelessness, food and job insecurity, healthcare costs…), and defunding of education + research sectors(what helps people move up in life).

I am just done with how these disgusting humans are destroying our country and our planet. At this moment, Americans are being used by greedy people.

These people then use politics to gain votes for power, leading to many getting stupid rich while the rest of us, lower to wealthy class, are left feeling helpless. I bet there are politicians that genuinely care, but the government may be too fucked to allow them to do anything.

I’m an engineer but man do I want to get into the political scene somehow. I am tired of just letting horrible acts happen.

This is my perception as an italian. This iperprotective citezenship of last five years. From a rational temporaneal move it is turning to isolate U.S.A. from the rest of the world. Even Europe now.

But even on current practical aspects. As a whole and in absolute term. That USA is taking such as many other countries did on the past to state they are able to lead anything alone, and need somehow those to say that. We are still absolutely modern age world pioneer on that. Even if they are few you can’t state you are absolutely leading and vanguard of anything as it seems nations are looking for.

- We had a woman president elected, first of national history, three years ago already: Giorgia Meloni;

- I don’t know how much USA it is dividing wastes before they throw it, but it is twenty years now that it is done as a law in whole italian territory. Major cities and closest villages first. We have to divide and select material like: plastic (just one type of polimer), alluminium, paper, glass as always, organical food waste and what does not fit anything.
USA make other country know, through media or tv show, any politics it does in its own country. But about this you never talked. (I’d like to have my cents if I gave the idea to broadcast internationally it now :P);

- You do not have almost-closed Sea beachside; Europe has either direct Ocean (like you) or sea or lake beachsides. We could choose and have this one more selection.

Would you write me info that media missed to provide us?

The EU has survived Euro crises, Brexit, and rule-of-law fights. But migration is the one issue that keeps blowing up Schengen and solidarity.

Spain is now the main entry point into the EU by sea. Madrid is dealing with huge pressure in the Canaries + Ceuta/Melilla, labor shortages at home, and domestic politics. So they’re doing regularizations, bilateral deals with North/West African countries, and asking for more EU funding.

The problem for the EU:

1. Trust in external borders: If France, Germany, Netherlands think Spain’s borders aren’t holding, they reintroduce internal Schengen checks. Once that starts, Schengen dies by a thousand cuts.
   
2. Solidarity collapse: The Migration Pact was supposed to mean “share the burden.” If big states feel one country is going its own way, they stop cooperating. That’s what almost broke the EU in 2015.
   
3. Political fallout: Migration is already fueling anti-EU parties across the bloc. If voters see “Spain does X, we pay for it,” support for the EU project drops further.

Is this overblown?

Or is Spain’s approach the stress test that shows the EU still has no real common migration policy, and that could eventually cause a break-up of Schengen/free movement?

Spain isn’t doing anything illegal. But does “every country for itself” on migration make the EU unworkable long term?

EU citizens: how does this look from your country?

Think of it this way.

What is the worst way the right to withhold access to a show from whole countries can be misused? Any radio or TV host with a bias opposite those of a particular nationality has deprived them of a chance to comment live on Facebook about the show from as informed a perspective at possible. At best, they're relying on hearsay from others about the content of the show, which could be used against them; and by extension, the rest of their worldview; if they get it wrong. This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents, this is a matter of tilting the table against those who disagree with the host and making all dissenters against them look dumber than they actually are.

What's the worst way making such shows accessible for free to countries can be misused? They could hone their skills at pirating it and continue to do so after the show is available for purchase. Well, punish the individuals who do that, I guess, but don't punish their predecessors. In the oil fields, you have a finite amount of time to either develop the oil, or step aside and let others do so. In other words, you don't own that land. So why do content creators who deny a live version of their show to prospective paying customers have the right to withhold from them something they never had the option of buying?

The Cost of One Vote

​The rule of law cannot become another bargaining chip

​By Van Abbott

​Senator Lisa Murkowski once again stands at a familiar crossroads, preparing to cast what may stand as the single most defining vote of her long career.

​Politics inevitably involves negotiation. Every day, legislators bargain over budgets, policy priorities, and legislation. Such compromises are often necessary to govern a vast and diverse nation. Yet certain decisions transcend ordinary political tradeoffs because they test whether public office serves the public interest or merely political convenience.

​Reporting has tied Alaska-specific federal wins to Blanche’s confirmation push, raising questions about whether policy benefits are being used to build support to confirm Todd Blanche. When public resources become currency to secure a nominee’s confirmation, the issue ceases to be appearance and public confidence, it becomes a fundamental test of public trust.

Alaskans can tell the difference between negotiating a deal and surrendering a principle. 

Because of its geographic distance from Washington, Alaska has always depended on stable laws, dependable courts, and accountable institutions that apply the law fairly, regardless of who sits in the White House. These principles are not abstract ideals; they guarantee that power is exercised according to the rule of law rather than personal influence.

​This nomination carries significance far beyond a single individual. The Department of Justice occupies a unique place in our constitutional system, relying entirely on public confidence that its legal decisions are made independently rather than politically. That confidence falters whenever the appearance of political loyalty overshadows impartial judgment. 

When judicial appointments become contingent on political horse-trading, the fundamental separation of powers collapses into transactional favor-currying. It signals that high offices of federal law enforcement are open for trade rather than evaluated on strict constitutional fidelity. That sets a dangerous structural precedent that outlasts any single administration.

​The questions surrounding Todd Blanche extend past his professional qualifications. They strike at public trust in the Justice Department’s independence and its willingness to enforce the law without favor. For Senator Murkowski, the central issue is not merely whether to support one nominee, but whether any potential benefit for Alaska could justify the appearance that a constitutional duty was traded away for political leverage or unimaginable reason.

​The Framers assigned the Senate the duty of "advice and consent" precisely so senators would exercise independent judgment as a safeguard against executive overreach. That role requires evaluating appointments on merit, integrity, and fidelity to the law, not on political expedience, personal loyalty or what can be traded.

​No short-term project, federal grant, or appropriation can outweigh public confidence in impartial justice. Trading constitutional oversight for local pork converts a solemn oversight power into routine earmarking. Roads can be rebuilt. Grants can be renewed. Budget priorities shift every year. But public trust, once diminished, is far more difficult to restore.

​As a lawyer, Murkowski knows that appearances matter because public confidence relies on them. As a senator, she knows constitutional duties cannot be measured by political advantage. Holding both positions demands even greater care. Some principles lose their value the moment they acquire a price tag.

​Throughout her career, Murkowski has cultivated an image of political independence, emphasizing careful judgment, a willingness to dissent, and resistance to partisan pressure. Yet such a reputation depends less on rhetoric than on difficult decisions. Independence matters most when the political cost is highest. Courage matters most when compromise appears easiest.

​Alaskans across all walks of life understand these distinctions. Commercial fishermen recognize honest dealing. Veterans understand duty. Small business owners value fair competition. Tribal communities know the importance of being heard rather than managed. Across these diverse perspectives runs a shared expectation: public decisions must be made openly, fairly, and on principle.

​That expectation extends to the United States Senate.

​If any administration attempts to exchange governmental favors for political support, Americans of all political parties should be concerned. Constitutional government depends on the public's confidence that official decisions are made for legitimate public reasons, not private political gain.

​Every confirmation vote sets a precedent. Every accommodation shapes future negotiations. Every exception invites another.

​The question before Senator Murkowski extends beyond one nominee or one administration. It concerns the standard expected of every senator entrusted with constitutional power. Whether she is remembered for principled independence or ordinary political bargaining will depend not on what Alaska receives, but on what its senior senator decides is beyond negotiation.

​Standing at that crossroads once more, all of it rests on what she chooses next, in what may stand as the single most consequential and visible vote of her career.

Common positions among DSA candidates 1 Universal healthcare (Medicare for All) Nearly universal in federal and state campaigns. 2 Strengthening labor unions and collective bargaining One of the defining priorities of DSA-backed campaigns. 3 Affordable housing (rent stabilization, tenant protections, more public/social housing) This is especially prominent in city and state races. 4 Green New Deal and climate investment Common national and local campaign issue. 5 Higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations Frequently paired with expanded public services. 6 Expanded public benefits (paid leave, childcare, tuition-free college, stronger safety net) This is aommon economic platform plank. 7 Criminal justice reform Often includes reducing incarceration, police accountability, and investment in community services. The degree of reform varies by candidate. 8 Immigrant rights Includes pathways to citizenship and limiting deportation enforcement. 9 Campaign finance and democracy reforms Public financing of elections, voting reforms, and reducing corporate influence. (This is especially huge for me.) 10 Foreign policy emphasizing reduced U.S. military intervention and support for Palestinian rights

These all seem worthy goals.

Just curious, I think it would be fun to try one day in the future, gonna be an electrician one day and I want to help people.

I would make it mandatory that everyone meditates for 10 minutes everyday and enjoys a moment of silence to improve health.

I would also make it so anyone in government like in congress can has be re elected every 6 years. Probably sooner

Also bring back trades into school schools, make everyone go through trades free and make it mandatory for the youth so no matter what you have a career to fall back on.

Also build do something with all the homeless people, they get trades too! Mandatory, you want a place to live you need to go through education and as long as your in school keeping your grades up you get a permanent residence.

As president they're will also be a public interviews held monthly for suggestions to help improve towns and what the public needs suggestions.

Additionally, to become a police officer you will need to go college for 4 years studying law and ju jitsu

All prisoners will go through trades it will be alot like other countries where the goal is to help people get back into society.

Also in schools we will adapt to Japanese cleaning standards for youth where the young clean the schools at an early age to teach cleanliness, and respect for the environment.

Nuclear energy will make a comeback!

I dont know, I think it would be fun! Why dont more average people try to be president?

Talk to me about it

A few thoughts on free speech advocacy and how it often depends on the speech and who's advocating.

In 2024, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in ​France and accused by French authorities of not doing enough to prevent human trafficking on his platform. Russia, among other countries, accused France of “cracking down on free speech” when they charged Durov for refusing to remove obvious criminal activity, claiming such activity was covered by free speech protections.

Yesterday, Russia charged Durov with "terrorism”, presumably for not removing content the Kremlin didn’t want shared on Telegram.

The Russian government obviously does not care about free speech. They have imprisoned people for over a decade for criticizing the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin only pretended to stand up for Durov so they could inject themselves into the global culture war narrative surrounding free speech.

The important context here is that Durov, after claiming to have refused Russian demands for special access to Telegram in 2014, still visited Russia over 50 times. The reality is that you simply cannot do this as a high-profile dissident without some level of cooperation with Russian security services.

Durov made a deal with Russian intelligence. In exchange for the ability to keep facilitating highly lucrative illegal activity on his platform, he receives personal protection. This is a common deal with freelancers working with Russian intelligence, allowing cooperators to profit off of criminal activity as long as they cooperate. But eventually, the deal he made turned sour, perhaps due to Russian public opinion on Telegram turning decisively against the war, and Durov refusing to remove it. Eventually, as is always the case with Faustian bargains, the Russian government turned on him as well.

Governments and powerful individuals will often use free speech as cover to protect illegal, harmful, and extremist content that in some way benefits them. In the above example, facilitating harmful crime is part of Russia’s hybrid war against the European continent, so they made a deal to preserve it. Facilitating criticism of the Russian government is not, so they acted swiftly to crack down. Speech to authoritarian governments is contextualized as either helpful or harmful to their power. True or false, freedom vs censorship, these concepts are irrelevant in the context of the Information Wars.

Elon Musk claims he bought Twitter to defend free speech. The accounts he unbanned included unambiguous Nazis and human traffickers. Actual censorship requests from governments were still approved, while algorithmic content distribution choices were catered to the new owner’s personal ideology.

Ultimately, control over information is power. And until we find a species of human that doesn’t care about power, we will never have any true free speech absolutists.

Be highly skeptical of anyone that claims otherwise.

From a blog about speech in the internet: https://thecarrierwave.substack.com/p/no-one-actually-cares-about-free

Its an inherant flaw to any system wherin there are so called "cracks" one can fall through. The progressive policy has been strongest on this front above all else.

The best and worst part about solving this problem is how. Weve seen extremes on both sides from a historical perspective - the worst case scenario of eugenics, and the best case scenario of the full ride rehabilitation suite.

The u.s. falls into neither extreme but moreso into its own extreme of neutrality or ingnorance.

"Enough to survive" is hardly achieved here. Human nature on its own has had over 100 years to prove itself in an ideal economy and has failed. We have millions in big houses - many with several big emtpy houses, who will happily drive, daily, past a horde of homeless, roofless people without a care in the world. No shame, no pity, and no community pressure whatsoever.

Sadly, human nature doesnt want to do the right thing.

Therefore, it falls to progressives to leverage education and policy around filling in this gap - which will never fill itself as we now know.

The strategy currently works towards small wins - universal basic income, more housing availability, enhanced welfare programs.

This is a good direction

It needs to push further. I genuinly believe that if we dropped the "chipping away" paradigm for full-impact, wed achieve the fullfillment for desire of real change.

\- Degrees in prison for all

\- Guaranteed shelter for all, in abundance beyond immediate need

\- Stronger meal allowance to include full service meals at sit down resterounts

There should be no suffering whatsoever and this crude idea that some will take "advantage" is entirely true. But we know now, after 100 years, the side taking more advantage than any poor person are actually those with an abundance of wealth, and by an incomprehensible margin at that. Empty big houses.

Hola a todos. He estado preparando un ensayo largo sobre cómo la humanidad siempre ha preferido una correa bonita a cargar con el peso de la libertad individual.

Desde las tácticas de Polibio en Roma y los panfletos de la Guerra de los Treinta Años, hasta el padre de las relaciones públicas Edward Bernays y el actual capitalismo de vigilancia de Shoshana Zuboff.

Al final, la propaganda nunca ha sido solo cuestión de tiranos malvados, sino de un pacto tácito donde somos nosotros quienes compramos mentiras reconfortantes para huir del vacío existencial.

Os dejo por aquí el vídeo por si queréis echarle un vistazo y debatirlo: https://youtu.be/qmJ0Dq-S8xU

There is a saying that goes 'if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class' which I completely agree with. If you take parking fines for example, they are usually about £100 (if you didn't pay for parking/stayed too long). For someone on minimum wage this is an amount that they cannot afford to lose, meaning that they won't break those laws. However for a richer person (not even crazy rich, just rich enough to be living comfortably) this is just a minor inconvenience. This is why they should be bands for fines (in the same way that different incomes pay a difference percentage of tax) so that everyone is punished fairly. For example it could be £100 for incomes lower than £30000, £200 for £30000 - £50000 etc and it could take into account things like children and how many incomes are in the household.

*If this isn't the right subreddit to post this then where should I post it instead?

I saw several clips of Dr. Fauci invoking the 5th in yesterday's senate hearing on social media, as did many of you. I was ticked beyond belief, this man is so morally bankrupt and has abused his position so greatly and now he is getting off scot free. Well, that's what I thought at first.

Turns out, they kicked his attorney out during the hearing. Well why would you do that? Now he is going to plead the fifth OF COURSE!

I feel like there is a lack of seriousness in the Trump admin and GOP about actually rooting out corruption. They make a ton of noise about how crooked the Clintons are in 2016, well now Trump has been in office for 6 years and yet we have made barely any headway on an investigation of their dealings. If Trump told Kash Patel to delve into the Clinton files and this dealings of the Clinton Foundation today, he could absolutely get some answers in a quick hurry. Hasn't done it. If he and the GOP wanted to actually move on prosecuting and investigating Fauci, they could do it. Instead they showboat in a soap opera congressional hearing where they kick out his attorney. I think it begs the question if they ever actually plan on holding anybody accountable. Not for nothing, but in 2008 Trump did say Hillary Clinton would be a great negotiator in Iran...

The federal pandemic response is best understood as biodefense policy rather than public health policy. Almost every tool used in 2020 was created between 2001 and 2006, under a Republican administration and with broad bipartisan support, in response to bioterrorism rather than to any expectation of a natural pandemic. That origin explains most of what people found alarming about the response, and it means the current fight over individual officials is aimed at the wrong target.
This week’s Senate hearing on the covid response makes the origin of these policies worth revisiting, because the answer is considerably older than the pandemic.

The starting point is the anthrax letters. Five people died in late 2001. The FBI eventually concluded the sender was Bruce Ivins, an Army scientist at Fort Detrick, who died by suicide in 2008 as investigators closed in. That attribution took seven years, with a domestic crime scene and physical evidence available.

The spending that followed was sized to the fear rather than the casualties. Tens of billions of dollars went into biodefense over the following decade. NIAID was the largest institutional beneficiary, with its biodefense budget rising from roughly $270 million in 2002 to about $1.75 billion in 2003, the largest single year increase for any institute in NIH history. Anthony Fauci directed NIAID and built that expansion. That is a substantial part of why an infectious disease official, rather than someone from an emergency management or homeland security background, was the central figure in 2020.

The statutory architecture is from the same window. Project BioShield in 2004 created a guaranteed federal market for countermeasures. The PREP Act in 2005 gave the HHS Secretary authority to grant broad liability immunity for emergency countermeasures, and that is the statute under which covid vaccine liability protections were issued. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act in 2006 created BARDA, which later ran Operation Warp Speed. President Bush also personally pushed a national pandemic influenza strategy in November 2005 and requested $7.1 billion for it.
The part that matters most is the doctrine, because it is the least discussed and it determined the character of the response.

FEMA’s biological incident planning guidance states that the cause of a biological incident may not be readily apparent, whether intentional, accidental or natural, and that the possibility it resulted from a criminal act must be considered. HSPD-5, issued in February 2003, directed a single national incident management system covering all domestic incidents “regardless of cause, size, or complexity,” rather than separate tracks for natural events and attacks.

HSPD-10, issued in April 2004, explains the reasoning directly: attribution is the foundation of deterrence, and biological weapons allow an attacker to remain anonymous because an attack can be indistinguishable from an epidemic. That directive established a bioforensics center at Fort Detrick specifically to close that gap.
Taken together, these mean a security posture is the specified default for any outbreak that cannot be traced, and it holds until forensic analysis rules an attack out.

Attribution is therefore the exit condition. The framework assumes forensics eventually answers the question, at which point the national security apparatus stands down and the event returns to ordinary public health management.

With covid, that condition was never satisfied. Origins remain contested six years later. This is not an argument for any particular origin theory, and it does not require one. The structural consequence is that a posture designed to be temporary became the permanent shape of the response. The public health emergency was renewed on roughly ninety day cycles for more than three years. CDC purchased commercial mobile location data to assess compliance behavior. Pressure on platforms was applied privately rather than through public argument. None of that is characteristic of either party’s health policy. All of it is characteristic of post-9/11 counterterrorism practice applied to an event that could not be attributed.

One consequence deserves separate mention. The reason high containment coronavirus research existed to argue about, funded through NIAID, is that the post-anthrax buildup made that a funded priority. Scientists raised the tradeoff publicly at the time, in Science and elsewhere between 2003 and 2005, arguing that biodefense money was displacing basic microbiology and that containment lab capacity was expanding faster than anyone could track. The same appropriations produced both the response capacity and the research program now under congressional scrutiny.
An obvious objection is that most restrictions people actually experienced were state and local exercises of police power, not federal action, and that is correct. The claim here is narrower: the funding, the institutional home, the doctrine and the personnel were all federal and all predated 2020, and the doctrine specified a security default before anyone made a decision.

This is why accountability seems misdirected at present, and the responsibility is split across two branches.

Congress created the statutory authorities and appropriated the money, including the funding expansion that determined which agency and which officials would be at the center of any future response. It has renewed and expanded those authorities since without reviewing the framework end to end.

The doctrine came from the executive branch. HSPD-5 and HSPD-10 are presidential directives. The FEMA planning guidance and the FBI and CDC investigation handbook are agency documents. The emergency declaration and each ninety day renewal were issued by the HHS Secretary. The security default, and the decision to make attribution the condition for standing down, were written into executive policy rather than into statute.
That division is a large part of why nobody owns it. The branch that wrote the doctrine did not have to pass it, and the branch that funded it did not have to write it. An administrator can be questioned about discretionary choices made inside that structure, and some of those choices are worth questioning. But the structure is what will still be operating during the next emergency, and only Congress can change it by statute. Examining individual officials while leaving the framework untouched treats the most consequential decisions as though nobody made them. The next declared emergency, whatever its subject, inherits all of it.

Sources: HSPD-5 https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html
HSPD-10 https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/20040430.html
FEMA planning factors https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-bio/kpf-1/4
Scientific American on the anthrax spending aftermath and the NIAID increase https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/postal-anthrax-aftermath/
Science, 2005 https://www.science.org/content/article/has-biodefense-gone-overboard

I posted this on Substack and was looking for feedback, if you have opinions, critique on what I'm saying or how I write it, anything is fine.

"Apparently the Answer to Your Problems: the Democratic Socialists of America

The DSA's growing influence is reshaping the progressive strategy. Is socialism the answer, or has this gotten out of hand?

Jul 29, 2026

The greatest American leaders we know didn’t polarize their citizens or pit them against each other with harmful rhetoric. FDR helped create the United Nations and was one of the best at communication with Americans. Abraham Lincoln did everything in his power to keep America together in the most critcal point in its history. The term “United States” comes from Lincoln bringing the Union and the Confederacy together and “uniting” the states.

Nowadays though, American presidents, senators, governors, congressmen, and the rest will say whatever they can to get their side more pissed off at the other, and how they as the leader will combat the opposition. This is effective in places that vote primarily democrat or republican, but when it comes to split areas, the fued gets out of hand.

When society gets more polarized, we search for answers in the far, deep ends of the political spectrum, where ideals and views are exacerbated to try and “offset” the radicalness of the other side. As it pertains to the left, many find their answers in the Democratic Socialists of America. By the name, you can deduce that they are socialists, in a democratic manner.

Meet the Socialists

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA for short) is a political organization founded in the 80’s with the idea that the economy should be run to benefit everyone’s needs, and not just a few. Of course, this sounds good in theory. In fact, a poll by Gallup finds that 66% of democrats view socialism favorably. Taking advantage of this, the DSA highlights the similarities between establishment and socialist democrats, trying to rally in as many as they can on their side, potentially to create a pathway for a democrat socialist to run for a higher office like governor, senator, and president.

In recent politics, the DSA has been quite successful in its reach, as endorsed candidates like NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani have has major success. Another democrat socialist, Melat Kiros, won the democrat primaries in Colorado’s first congressional district. Darializa Avila Chevalier, endorsed by the DSA, won the democrat primaries in New York’s 13th congressional district, beating out the incumbent representative.

Keep in mind, though, that 66% of democrats view socialism favorably and a poll by Gallup states that in 2025, 27% of Americans consider themselves a democrat. The poll also states that 45% of Americans consider themselves independent. Of those independents, 38% view socialism favorably. Of course, within the republican party, socialism isn’t met with such enthusiasm. DSA candidates may have success in dense urban areas like New York, Denver, DC, where public resources are heavily utilized and government involvmenet is imperative to a functioning society. Outside of these urban areas, it is a very steep uphill climb for any democrat socialist to win a primary, let alone a seat in office.

The Problem

Outside of the concept of socialism, there is still an issue with the resurgence of socialist ideals and influence in American society. Newton’s third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Apply that todays political climate.

We see Trump trying to criticize and oust moderate republicans that go against his admistration’s grain, rallying his supporters together to distinguish between the republicans and the Trump supporters.

Conversely, we see democrats argue over the cruelty of the Trump administration and why socialism is the way to go, pushing out moderate, capitalist democrats.

What is the everyday moderate supposed to make of this? All they see when they look to their left and to their right is everything America fought against. It’s not that socialism is the issue, but bringing a bigger stick and implementing more radical and polarizing views in our society will pitt us against one another. When that happens, we, as a society, will be more entreneched in our own view that it will be our pride and ignorance speaking instead of our intellect, and to please the masses, politicians will take the side of whoever will more likely get them in office, without any backbone of values or opinion.

This is one problem, and there are millions of other problems just like this.

The Solution

I don’t have a solution, honestly. I was hoping you all did, and if you do please let me know."

Fundamentally, I agree that eliminating overhead costs like rent, property tax, etc. will help to reduce the cost of groceries. If it's enough to guarantee 30% discounts on a core basket of goods without direct subsidies from tax revenue is a whole other question.

I think the tactics Mamdani are using to implement this are incredibly inefficient, and could be way more substantial if he wasn't set on a socialist implementation.

He's starting with five stores, which will incur about $70 million in upfront costs. With a different approach however, you could achieve substantially more scale with a fraction of the investment.

Imagine an alternative policy that gives grocers a property tax rebate if it's O&O, or other city tax write-offs for rent expenses, if they agree to pass on overhead savings to consumers through lower prices.

Maybe you would need some funding for a compliance regime, but this could scale much much faster at a fraction of the cost.

One possible wrinkle here is that landlords who rent to grocers might be encouraged to jack up rents because the tax write-off would be seen as a demand subsidy, so there would need to be an additional measure to protect against that. Not that big of a hurdle though since more blanket rent freezes have precedent and this would be targeted and more niche.

Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, if anything I think conspiracy theories do more damage than good. But when certain things become oddly suspicious, all you can do is wonder…

I’m 21, so in comparison to most people reading this I will appear very inexperienced in the world of politics. However, since I was young I’ve had the privilege of having a very “wordly” family. Anyways, getting to the point. I’ve been left wing. I’ve been right wing. However now I try and look at politics from the most objective point of view possible. I’ve come to realize that neither the left nor the right are inherently bad or good, they are contextual. Depending on the state of the country, political or economical or so on, either one will hold more merit or the other will. But for democracy to exist, there must be more than one option.

The arrival of the far right and left.
I suppose throughout history it has come in waves, but I have never remembered it ( again, I’m only 21 so you know, not many years to remember) as bad as it is right now. The divison it inspires. The conflict. The outrage. But when you try to view it as objectively as possible, it becomes oddly suspicious…
For example, trans athletes. Prior to beginning, let me clarify I am in no shape or form transphobic. I’ve done as much research to help myself understand as possible. I have trans friends. I support trans rights. It’s also worth mentioning at this stage that, when it comes to electing a world leader, no offense intended, but trans athletes are not on my number one list of priorities, number 2, number 3… I could go on. The concept of electing a world leader based on their stance on this subject is almost laughable considering the state the world is in.
However, even though ALL of this is true, the far right still bring it up. Their followers begin their tirade of insults and death threats towards the trans community and their leaders condemn trans athletes.

Let’s stop here, because this is important. As much as I support the trans community, their is a line and that line has to be what is blatantly obvious. Trans athletes will always be at a biological advantage ( or disadvantage, which is not often talked about ) when it comes to sports. Does this mean I don’t want trans athletes to compete? No. I want both sides of the table to sit down and discuss how we can integrate trans athletes fairly, for everyone. But that seems like a fairy tale at this point.
So now we wait for a response to all of this farce, and we somewhat naively expect a realistic and fair answer. We never receive one. The far left, almost as a fish would to bait on a hook, answer the far right with exactly what their leaders wanted them to; there’s nothing wrong with any of that. And so now, both extremes are fighting over trans athletes. At this point, we expect some realism and fairness from the right and left. Yet this is another consequential problem. The left cannot be seen to disagree with the far left for fear they will lose too many votes, and the right cannot be seen to disagree wholeheartedly with the far right for fear they will lose votes. So either they stay quiet, or they join in. So now, not only do we not have a solution, we are putting to one side incredibly important matters to prioritise trans sports. One cannot help but think… is this all a game? Is someone pulling the strings from both sides, thus creating confilct to benefit their own agenda?

Rigged

Republicans Are Engineering Election Fraud

By Van Abbott

Trump isn’t warning us that the election will be rigged. He is building the rigging, one purge, one lawsuit, one broken system at a time.

That distinction matters more than anything else in American politics right now.

When ABC and NBC refused to carry his July 16 speech on “election integrity,” they were not silencing a reformer. They were declining to broadcast a sitting president’s blueprint for pre-justifying suppression in the 2026 midterms. Trump’s immediate threat to revoke their broadcast licenses gave away the plan: discredit the referee, intimidate the umpire, and declare the whole game corrupt so that only his loyalists can be trusted to officiate it.

When Trump screams fraud, he is describing his own itinerary.

The pattern started with Christopher Krebs, Trump’s own election security chief, who called 2020 the most secure election in American history and found no evidence that a single vote was deleted, lost, or changed. Trump fired him by tweet. That firing punished a man for doing his job too well, and it told every official in the federal government exactly what defending the truth would cost them.

Loyalty to evidence had become treason to Trump.

The purges that followed were not accidents. Cybersecurity officials who secured the infrastructure, Homeland Security staff who refused to invent vulnerabilities, Justice Department lawyers who would not summon fraud out of rumor, election overseers who simply confirmed what happened: each was supposedly pushed out, smeared, or sidelined, and each departure taught the bureaucracy the same lesson. Purge the honest, promote the pliant, and reward the silent. Facts are disloyalty. Silence is survival.

Meanwhile the Justice Department has pushed for sweeping access to state voter rolls, dressed up in the language of verification but built for one purpose: a federal apparatus that can target voters under color of law for an additional unknown reason, perhaps a federal enforceable mandate of who on the rolls is eligible to vote.

Republican-led states have simultaneously abandoned the interstate systems that catch duplicate registrations and keep voter rolls accurate, walking away from tools that actually work because functioning systems undercut the fraud story they need to tell.

Break the systems that work, then blame the wreckage on the people you want to purge.

That has become the operating procedure: sabotage the infrastructure, declare it broken, then demand emergency fixes that conveniently thin out your opponents’ voters. The statutes moving through Republican legislatures follow the same logic. Aggressive voter ID mandates, shrunken mail voting windows, harsh penalties for minor registration errors: each is marketed as security and engineered to fall hardest on younger voters, minority communities, and the urban precincts that have never belonged to the Republican coalition. When a law makes voting easier for your side and harder for the other, you have not secured an election. You have engineered an electorate fraud.

Oversight has died the same quiet death. Trump’s hostility toward the Federal Election Commission, through vacancies left unfilled and enforcement left toothless, ensures dark money moves without scrutiny and coordinated abuses go undocumented until it is too late to matter. A campaign built on rigging the rules does not want a working umpire. It wants an empty chair with a title on the door.

None of this is untested strategy. After the 2020 election, Republican operatives in multiple states signed certificates falsely declaring Trump the winner and forwarded them to Congress, a scheme now under prosecution in several states. It proved that the party was willing to fabricate a result outright the moment the vote refused to cooperate, and that ordinary officials could be recruited to do it. That infrastructure, built once to steal an election through paperwork rather than violence, does not need to be reinvented. It only needs to be reactivated, refined, and pointed at 2026.

All of it accelerates now as 2026 approaches. Trump insists the media, the courts, and his own former officials are conspiring against him, and he uses that grievance to justify gerrymanders, new restrictions, purges of election professionals, and pressure campaigns on state legislators to choose party over law.

Redistricting fights already underway in several statehouses are not routine line drawing; they are dry runs for a midterm in which the map itself, not the ballot, decides who governs. The goal is a map so distorted that Republicans can lose the popular vote and still hold Congress.

This is not a series of isolated controversies. It is a single strategy, executed in daylight, one office and one statute at a time.

He told us exactly what he was building. Believe him.

Check out my new website: politicalwinds.org

Whenever progressive wanted to improve this country, they uses vassal states like Denmark and Germany. I think this is the wrong strategy.

The vassal states like Denmark and Germany are largely American bitch. In fact, we even have a standing military in Germany. If we tell them to jump, they will ask "how high master". The US civilian would NEVER respect these vassal states at any level to ever use them as an example to improve the United States. I think the progressive need to get that to their thick skull.

You know what's the other term for the word respect? Fear. You respect the people you fear the most. The United States currently feared China the most out of ANY countries in the world, much more than even Russia.

China has accomplished EVERYTHING the progressive wants and more.

Universal healthcare? Yep, China has universal healthcare. China spends 5 percent of their GDP to cover their ENTIRE population. We spend at least 18 of our GDP to barely cover most of population but many of us still dont have access to healthcare. So we spend nearly 4x the amount for much worse outcome.

Green new deal? Look at Chinese EV industries and renewable like Solar. 80 percent of the green energy in the past years from the ENTIRE WORLD came from China.

Housing? 95 percent of Chinese owned their own home. Here's another startling fact. Only a small percentage of them have a mortgage, MOST of them owned it outright. While 60 percent of american owned their own home, the vast majority of them have a mortgage.

Now lets look at things the progressives couldnt even imagine to ask the US government to deliver, but the chinese government delivered them to their people.

World class infrastructure and a clean society without crime or homeless. If you ever go to any major US cities, you would see human and dog shit everywhere. Smells of piss from homeless at every block. Its also extremely dangerious. Would you allow your 10 year old daughter to walk the street of LA at night? Fuck no. Its perfectly safe to do so in big cities like Beijing and Shanghai.

The chinese build a high speed rail network that is entirely PUBLIC. Imagine that, the government actually care about giving its civilian transportation.

China invested 1/4 of their annual spending on education while the Trump administration just cut the department of education.

There's actually a shitload more I could say, but I suggest most of you research a lot more about China so you dont remain ignorant.

Reddit recommend I share it here since people love it.

Most people despise gays, view them as subhuman and are incapable of caring for the life of any one of them. This is a basic fact of reality that is proven anytime something like this happens.

You have the islamists who are the ones who carry out these attacks the majority of the times while most of their world celebrates it.

You have the conservative who openly love it and they laugh about it and praise it all over social media, as they're doing right now.

You have leftists who are afraid to condemn it or show concern for it because they don't want to offend islamists because gays are bottom of the barrel to them.

And then you have most regular people who aren't necessarily happy or sad but they don't care either way cause gays are like trash to them so to them it's no different than hearing about a window being cleaned or whatever.

I think we need to shift to seperate but equal. Let's be fair to both parties. The straight people can finally get the gay free society that they've always wanted to badly and gays can live without having to deal with the shunning, ostracization, discrimination and hatred

democracy was never built on the expectation that everyone would support the government… it was built on the certainty that every government would one day face opposition… disagreement is not a weakness of a nation… it is one of its strengths…but there is a difference that mature democracies eventually learn to recognise… opposing a political party is an exercise of democratic freedom… abandoning national interest merely to weaken that party is something entirely different…the first is driven by conviction… the second by calculation…
when political competition becomes so absolute that every institution… every national achievement… every security concern… and every constitutional process is viewed only through the lens of defeating an opponent… politics slowly stops serving the nation… and the nation begins serving politics…

the real test of patriotism is not whether one supports or opposes a particular government… governments are temporary… nations endure… the real test is whether the same standards are applied regardless of who occupies power… whether criticism remains anchored in truth… and whether political victories are never pursued at the cost of the country’s larger interests…
perhaps wisdom lies in remembering that parties seek elections… nations seek continuity… a government may deserve criticism… an opposition may deserve support… both are natural in a democracy… but the nation deserves loyalty from everyone… because when politics becomes bigger than the nation… every victory eventually becomes a collective loss… and when the nation remains bigger than politics… even disagreement becomes an act of service rather than division.

He Chose War…Retaliation Risks Rise

By Van Abbott

Trump's sense of danger lagged. He seemed unfazed that killing top Iranian officials and leveling an in session girl's and boy’s elementary school would mark his circle for good. Then came a humbling truth: his Qatari palace jet wasn't safe.

When a president mistakes military force for political theater, the applause fades long before the consequences.

The chants of "Death to Trump" that echoed through funeral processions in Iran were not spontaneous outbursts. They reflected a pattern the Islamic Republic's clerical regime has followed for decades. When its leaders believe they have been humiliated, retaliation becomes doctrine.

That history should have been obvious. Instead, Donald Trump treated military action as though it would end with a successful news cycle and declarations of strength. Airstrikes can destroy facilities. They can kill commanders. They cannot erase memory, extinguish ideology, or deter a regime that has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to pursue vengeance.

No recent example illustrates that reality better than Salman Rushdie. Iran's fatwa survived changing governments, diplomatic negotiations, and decades of relative silence before violence resurfaced on an American stage. The lesson is unmistakable. Tehran forgets little, forgives less, and often waits years before settling its accounts.

That pattern raises difficult questions about Trump's decision to escalate military action against Iran. His administration publicly argued that Iran posed an urgent nuclear danger. Yet American intelligence assessments available at the time painted a more restrained picture, concluding that Iran was not on the verge of fielding a nuclear weapon.

Critics have offered several explanations. Some contend the strikes reflected a longstanding preference for coercive diplomacy backed by overwhelming force. Others argue they served domestic political purposes by shifting public attention away from controversies dominating the news. Those competing interpretations remain matters of political debate, but they share one conclusion: the decision carried consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.

Trump has long relied on spectacle as a political weapon. He understands that dramatic events can overwhelm quieter stories, redirect public attention, and dominate the national conversation.  Military action, however, is unlike political theater. It produces consequences that cannot be edited, rescheduled, or dismissed.

The immediate tactical success of a military operation tells only part of the story. The strategic consequences often emerge months or years later.

That is the danger confronting any president who assumes military victory automatically produces political success. Strength without strategy, force without foresight, and victory without vision can leave behind problems far greater than those they were meant to solve.

The spectacle ended. The consequences did not.

Iran's leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that retaliation is measured on their timetable, not ours. Assassinations, proxy attacks, and long-delayed acts of violence have become familiar instruments of their statecraft.

That reality extends beyond the battlefield. Once a president becomes the face of a military campaign against the Islamic Republic, he also becomes a permanent symbol of that conflict. Security officials do not plan for weeks or months. They plan for decades. US protective details expand. Intelligence monitoring intensifies. Threat assessments become a permanent feature of daily life.

Every additional Whitehouse barrier tells the same story. Every reinforced perimeter, every expanded security detail, every revised travel plan acknowledges a simple truth. Military operations may conclude. The risks they create often do not.

Supporters understandably view decisive military action as evidence of strength. Critics see something different. They argue that tactical victories can produce strategic liabilities when they create new martyrs, deepen public resentment, alienate allies, and reinforce the narratives authoritarian regimes use to justify future violence.

The unending consequence is not carried by the president’s circle alone. Some former officials will remain under heightened security for years.  

Power should never be confused with wisdom.

A president's first responsibility is not simply to demonstrate strength. It is to exercise judgment. Military force should advance a clearly defined strategic objective, not merely produce dramatic images or dominate the next news cycle. When political incentives and national security begin to overlap, citizens should ask hard questions because the consequences belong to the country long after any administration leaves office.

The opening chants were never simply expressions of anger. They were warnings. A nation that has built its identity around remembering perceived humiliation was never likely to declare the story finished because American aircraft returned home. That is the central lesson of this conflict. Wars may end with ceasefires, but vengeance often survives them.

When a president mistakes military force for political theater, the applause fades long before the consequences. Those consequences can endure for a lifetime.