Paywall-free link: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/opinion/voters-political-parties-coalitions.html

In short, having lost the argument that there are only two sides of politics, our Lords and Masters have decided to define the acceptable "other" groups that we are allowed to belong to:

We find that 21 percent of voters — including 42 percent of self-identified Democrats — fall into the Loyal Left, a group that is progressive on most issues and especially outraged by what its members see as widespread political corruption. They’re also most likely to say they’re “extremely motivated” to vote in the midterms, and over half say that their politics are very important to their personal identity. A good avatar for this group might be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

...and that's as "Left" as you are allowed to be; a loyal Democrat who makes centrist comments in ways that sound extreme. I would call this group, "Tribal Democrats."

Note also their use of statistics to imply that half of voters are Democrats, when it's more like 28%.

Their closest cousins are what we call Electability Democrats. Making up 10 percent of voters overall (and about 19 percent of the Democratic Party), these voters are also fired up to vote in the midterms and progressive on economic matters. However, this group is slightly more ethnically diverse than the Loyal Left, which is overwhelmingly white, and also diverges sharply on several key cultural questions. Electability Democrats generally oppose the idea of defunding the police, take more conservative views on the participation of transgender individuals in competitive sports and are more middle-of-the-road on immigration issues. Asked which group I’d sort James Carville into, I’d put him here.

I would call this group, "Establishment Democrats."

The NYT then lists two other "left-leaning" groups:

The American Institutionalists, who represent 11 percent of all voters, are the most likely to have a high income or a graduate degree. They are whiter and older; more than half were born before 1965. They tend to get their news from broadcast TV rather than social media. While they are frustrated with our political moment and 77 percent feel unfavorably toward President Trump, they maintain an abiding faith in America and its institutions, and in our ability to change — even reverse — course when Mr. Trump leaves office.

The last of the Petty Bourgeois; there's nothing "left-wing" about this group, they just have an idealized view of the past.

The Young and Disillusioned are pretty much the opposite. They are 9 percent of the electorate but an even smaller share of the Democrats’ most reliable voters because they are, as the name says, young and disillusioned. Social media is their top source of news, and politics is not a major part of their identity. They’re lower down on the income scale and occasionally have libertarian leanings on guns, foreign policy and regulation. They’re worried about the cost of living and distrustful of the media and politicians alike.

And this is just a catchall for anything they didn't understand, covering some of the left, but cutting it apart by age and mixing in nonsense issues for no good reason.

OK, now for the "Right:"

On the right, first, look to a tribe we call Middle American Optimists, making up 11 percent of voters this year. They’ve little love for Democrats, and two-thirds voted for Mr. Trump in 2024. So far, they think he is doing an OK job as president, but they’re less than thrilled about the state of the economy. They’re younger and less churchgoing, and unsurprisingly much less conservative on both cultural and economic issues than the rest of their brethren on the political right.

Wait, these have to be a significant chunk of Trump supporters, but they are *LESS* conservative on "cultural and economic" issues? What other issues are there?

Critical to Mr. Trump’s reinvention of the G.O.P. has been our next group, the New Republican Populists, who are about 6 percent of the 2026 electorate. They are quite religious, live in more rural areas and oppose abortion, while rejecting much of the traditional conservative economic orthodoxy — they’re unlikely to say that you can just pull yourself up by your bootstraps. They’re OK with a bigger government, depending on what services it provides. They are, if you will, “Medicare for all, abortion for none” voters.

OK, these people I know, but none of them support Medicare for All, less because they are unsympathetic, but because people they disagree with do support it. This is entirely misunderstanding the nature of contemporary political ideology.

That brings us to the Moderate Right, who are 13 percent of voters and a group whose members are fairly pro-establishment in contrast with their more anti-establishment right-of-center peers. They still subscribe to a more traditional conservative view on economics and are fairly socially conservative. But perhaps by virtue of being a more female-heavy tribe, they’re also moderate on the issue of abortion and more open to the view that sexism remains a problem in society. Make no mistake: Most are still favorably disposed toward Mr. Trump, half report being Fox News viewers and three-quarters choose the Republican candidate in a generic matchup. But these days, they’re just not as excited about all of it — Come back, Nikki Haley.

"MODERATE?!" These aren't moderates, these are the fringe wackos! Oh, they're "moderate" on abortion, are they? Nikki Haley is a far-right nutcase who wants to make war on the world and thought that the Spanish Inquisition didn't go far enough.

The Loyal Right remains enthusiastic about Mr. Trump and ready to turn out for Republicans in this year’s midterms, but its size — 18 percent of the electorate — makes it insufficient, on its own, for retaining a Republican majority.

So... the "Moderate Right," but firmly against abortion? Isn't that just, "The Right?"

“I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating”

― William "Boss" Tweed

I'm not on that list; most of the people I know do not fall into those groups. All they have done here is reshape the Overton Window so that it's no longer square, it's like a jigsaw piece conveniently cutting out the views they don't want to have to address.

Recently, I had a discussion regarding my country of ancestry, The Philippines and the dire state that its in. One of my friends stated that its situation is a direct result of the people's lack of discipline and education. Another person argued that the government's incompetency is the main contributor. The first person I mentioned replied and said that because our country is a democracy, all the failings of the government are because of the people. However, that argument just doesn't make complete sense to me. There are other countries in the world that are democratic and successful, such as Norway or Singapore. And, although I'm unsure of this, aren't there groups who pursue their agenda through propaganda and misinformation in these countries as well? Are the majority of people of these countries really closely examining their leaders before they elect them, or are there other factors that I'm not taking into account? And lastly, are my people really just incompetent? I really don't want to believe this, but I think being certain would put my mind at ease.

Just like, the title says, those arguments about Sudan and Iran are clearly made in bad-faith.

Needless to say Americans and Europeans are going to be more concerned about wars that they are involved in but Zionist apologists really cannot help but to start gaslighting others.

Sudan? A civil war which is enabled by proxy warfare. Sure the Emirates is responsible but they are funding those proxies by their own money as those American and European politicians are not involved. And you can never control what other countries do but you can withdraw your involvement.

Iran? They were already sanctioned since many decades but needless to say no sane man wanted to get involved in another Middle Eastern war as Trump's actions have shown why.

So? It's clear that those who make such arguments are only gaslighting others to deflect from their Zionist havoc in the Middle East which many Americans and Europeans are so rightfully unwilling to get involved in.

So overall, I want to understand better, at least in this small section of Reddit, how do people understand the general idea of Politics? What is it? What is it trying to do? These are the questions I want answered.

~ ~

To me.

Politics is what happens when people are faced with material and social conflicts and must come to a decision about it, whatever those decisions may be. This is the fundamental political question. All of politics expands outwardly from this question and becomes increasingly complicated, as complicated as we want it to be. Although it doesn't Need to be so complicated. There are justifications for complications merely for power, not to directly satisfy the fundamental question, for example.

Every government system proposed and acted out is trying to answer the fundamental question. Every political philosophy proposed and acted out is trying to answer the fundamental question. Whether they realise it or not.

Every political ideology that exists currently is a specific set of answers to material and social conflicts that exist currently. They too are all trying to answer the fundamental political question. Whether they realise it or not. This is politics to me.

El giro central de esta nueva etapa consistió en mudar el campo de batalla: pasaron de la economía a la cultura. La izquierda entendió que no podía ganar en la creación de riqueza ni en el mercado, así que decidió conquistar las ideas. Para esto, rescataron las ideas de teóricos neo-marxistas como Antonio Gramsci y la Escuela de Frankfurt:

Comprendieron que para dominar la política, primero había que controlar los centros donde se forma la opinión pública: las universidades, los medios de comunicación, la industria del entretenimiento y las escuelas. El obrero tradicional dejó de servirles. En el capitalismo, el trabajador busca prosperar, no hacer la revolución. La izquierda necesitaba fabricar nuevos grupos permanentemente resentidos.

La estrategia clave fue muy simple: reemplazar la lucha de clases por la lucha de identidades. La vieja fórmula del burgués opresor contra el obrero oprimido se dividió en mil batallas culturales:El feminismo radical se transformó la relación entre hombres y mujeres en una guerra de sexos, presentando al hombre como opresor patriarcal y a la mujer como víctima natural. La ideología de género buscó despegar la identidad humana de la biología, imponiendo la idea de que el sexo es una construcción social para justificar la intervención del Estado en la educación de los chicos.El indigenismo y el neo-colonialismo se usó la causa étnica para fragmentar la identidad nacional en los países hispanoamericanos y generar conflicto social. El ecologismo radical se empezó a pintar al ser humano como una plaga para el planeta, justificando impuestos, regulaciones y control de natalidad.

A diferencia del comunismo del siglo XX, la nueva izquierda entendió que ya no necesitaba hacer una revolución armada para tomar el poder. Lo logró desde adentro, metiéndose en la burocracia estatal.

El que quiera escuchar y ver la realidad tal cual es, que escuche y se arme de argumentos para dar la batalla cultural y el que prefiera seguir cómodo en el dogma progresista o mirar para otro lado que siga de largo.

Seriously though. These candidates lack the knowledge and understanding of our political system and how a bill gets passed. Or the ones that do will immediately moderate since they realize they have to work with those who hate their platform. They will NEVER deliver on their signature issues like Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, let alone 20, or anything with “free in it.” These things need to be funded and placing the burden on the rich will just cause the rich to leave, then the burden falls on working class Americans. Orrrrrr……. The courts will strike it down for you.

The question is straightforward from an economic perspective: can a president profit off his office while serving? The Constitution's Emoluments Clauses say no—foreign emoluments require congressional consent, and domestic ones are capped at salary. But what happens when those rules interact with real markets?

Here's the data for Trump's second term so far (Jan 2025–mid-2026):

Net worth: Forbes reports a $3 billion increase, from roughly $4.3B to $7.3B—while he holds the highest office in the land. That's not just "good business"; it's unprecedented for an incumbent president.

Crypto ventures: World Liberty Financial launched two meme coins ($TRUMP and $MELANIA). The token sales generated about $1.4 billion, with a Trump family entity receiving roughly 75% of proceeds. A single memecoin alone added ~$710 million to his wealth. He also rolled back crypto regulation and signed legislation favorable to the industry—actions that directly benefit his own financial interests.

Foreign real estate licensing: Revenues jumped an estimated 580%. Public records indicate five foreign governments are paying nearly $2 million per month in fees for units at Trump Tower, plus new international deals with Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Romania, India, Qatar and the UAE.

Other business lines: LIV Golf (backed by a Saudi investment fund) holds events at his properties; Trump Media & Technology Group—controlling interest in Truth Social—means any foreign investor buying shares pushes up his net worth directly.

The House Oversight Committee released a 156-page report on how the former president "put his office up for sale." CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) has argued that Trump "expressly organized his business interests" to facilitate receipt of foreign gifts, likely violating constitutional provisions. Unlike previous presidents, he did not divest or place assets in a blind trust when taking office—a departure from established norms aimed at preventing conflicts of interest.

Economically, this looks like a classic conflict-of-interest problem: the president's private wealth is now mechanically tied to policy decisions he controls (regulatory rollbacks, executive orders affecting foreign trade, etc.). The market has priced in that linkage—crypto valuations and real estate licensing deals have expanded dramatically under his watch.

The Emoluments Clauses were designed precisely to prevent this kind of situation. Yet the mechanisms Trump is using—cryptocurrency token sales, foreign government payments for property, SPAC-style equity stakes—are not explicitly covered by existing statutes, which is why enforcement has been weak so far. That's a gap in the law, but it doesn't make the behavior benign; it just means the rules haven't caught up to the new financial instruments.

So the core economic takeaway: Trump's wealth accumulation during his second term isn't merely "good business"; it's structurally linked to his official actions and the constitutional framework meant to prevent presidents from profiting off office. Whether that linkage is legal under current interpretations of the Emoluments Clauses is debatable, but the market dynamics are clear—and they raise serious questions about conflicts of interest in the modern presidency.

Sources:

• FactCheck.org: "Trump's Numbers, April 2026 Update" (job growth, unemployment, CPI data)
• Forbes: Trump net worth jump to $7.3B; World Liberty Financial token sales figures
• Mother Jones: detailed breakdown of foreign payments, crypto ventures, and business interests
• House Oversight Committee report on emoluments violations
• CREW analysis of constitutional concerns

About the iran-israel-us war

I don't support Israel, I am an arab, I love peaceful palestinians, I love peaceful people around the world, which yes includes israelis and iranians. But iran has also sponsored regimes, massacres and murders, it has supported the (weirdly) secular regime with the second highest palestian kill count, and has killed over 300k-400k innocent civillians across 15 years of war, and god knows how many across the 50 years of war, all of those people would have appreciated a us intervention to stop the mass killings, because politics suddenly don't start to matter when your at the end of a gun barrel as a 4 year old toddler.

Yes, US Soldiers did kill innocents, it caused vacuum powers which did result in ISIS taking over, they didn't have the best planning in the world, there are multiple, multiple massacres done by US Soldiers, but that doesn't mean they don't do good, if anyone else did what they tried to do, they would have murdered more people.

I don't believe they should have intervened in iraq much, saddam was an evil dictator, but I am not referring to the mortality of it, I'm talking about the results, and the fruits it has garnered.

My stance should mean nothing, what I am saying is that as humans, we should not let more people be killed over meaningless things, and yes I do believe this is an unpopular opinion, because the masses choose to shove their heads in the sand, and ignore the massacres done by their people.

a bullet doesn't care if you're a muslim, or a jew, arab, christian, gay, straight, young, or old.

I am from the UK, I consider myself European first and British second. Just for context I have no sympathies for the far right. I am not anti-immigrant nor any specific group of people in their totality. I think immigration in a vacuum is a good thing, but has some negative downstream implications that must be considered.

Here is my perspective. In broad strokes why is the "right" often anti-immigration and the "left" pro-immigration? I would say primarily it comes down to having either a systemic institutionalist view versus an institutionally privileged view.

Conservatives have a worldview founded on institutional privilege meaning the institutions that we have created are good by virtue of the fact that they exist, and that they have been tested on their original purpose over many years, and thus their resilience proves their inherent value. This implies that negative outcomes are primarily created by individuals, because if institutions are intrinsically valuable on their own merit, negative outcomes come down to individuals not engaging with them correctly or at all. If a man is poor, it's because he did not correctly use the institutions (school, job searching tools, etc). The fact that some people are successful while others are not, is proof that the institutions are fine, and how you use them is the deciding factor.

While on the left we have a systemic view of institutions, meaning the institutions generate outcomes. If someone is poor, they may otherwise not have been poor if the institutions around them were more accommodating (better schooling, investment in job creation, mental health support etc). Negative outcomes can be alleviated through adequate policy and institutional design, and institutions are only as valuable as the outcomes they generate.

So, imagine what we consider in Britain an archetypical chav or roadman (essentially a poor dysfunctional individual occupying the lowest ranks of society and exhibiting a significant inability to improve their situation). This individual is British (we'll say white for reasons I will explain later) had a traumatic upbringing, is on long-term unemployment benefits, has frequent run-ins with the police, is unskilled, and is all in all a net burden on society. The left would look at such an individual and say that they are not inherently that way, but rather them being that way is primarily a failure of institutional design- such as lack of investment in mental health services, lack of support throughout their schooling, diminishing job opportunities and community ties where they live. In the event that such problems were rectified, we would see a much more functional member of society.

This latter perspective is my own, what I have been thinking about recently is that applying that same worldview to immigration makes things complicated. Those same factors that apply to the dysfunctional British person in the last paragraph apply significantly more to certain regions of the world. I won't say specifically where on here, but countries with poor quality education, high rates of crime, corruption, lack of mental health support etc. By the lefts own worldview these individuals should be more likely to exhibit those dysfunctional traits than the British man I spoke of.

This is different to the right-wing view which would say these places just have an inferior culture or are just bad people for whatever reason (the racist view), the view I described makes the left uncomfortable because it seems on first appearance that it echos the worldview of the right viewing certain people as just inferior. It does not, under this perspective these people would otherwise be no different from us, it is their poor quality institutions that generates dysfunctionality, not any intrinsic or inherent trait they have. Thus according to the lefts own institutional worldview, immigrants from these places should be more likely to exhibit dysfunctionality than the British person.

Now at this point I need to mention something, because there is one additional element that affects the assimilation of immigrants. That is of course racism. Unfairly stereotyping and discriminating against large swathes of people based on where they are from naturally will negatively affect their ability to ameliorate their social standing. So here the left has a catch-22. If the left acknowledges that the same factors that harm the dysfunctional white British person's standing (I say white because then the element of racism does not affect him as he is in the racial majority) also affect these immigrant groups (often to a much greater degree), they unintentionally contribute to another factor preventing their full integration, which is racism as the whole group will be smeared with the label. If the left does not acknowledge it, they are seen as hypocritical and not adequately diagnosing the issue.

One final thing I would like to address is that the argument that institutional design is helping everyone. So, assuming the immigrant communities are being helped just as much as the white British person, I think most people understand that there is a window of opportunity for institutions to shape outcomes in that manner. It's one thing to take someone from a harsh background and improve their conditions while they are still young, it is another thing to do so as an adult when they have already been moulded by the poor-quality intuitions they experienced initially.

The implications of this are that it is reasonable to discriminate against countries that do not meet the standard quality of our own institutions. We may spend money helping these places improve, but we must be tentative about accepting immigrants from these places. In my experience the data generally backs up my worldview. I'd love to get another perspective though!

A good lens by which to frame this topic is the level of topic a local government has over the national government.

I'd say that the only power over local sovereignty a national government should have must be justified by either:
A) Ensuring stability (currency printing, econ regulations, environmental regulations, general education, military, and taxes to fund A and B), and/or
B) The protection of universal human rights (market regulations for workers' rights, laws against various crimes, military, education (children's rights), healthcare

In my lens of sovereignty, influencing people through communication does not impact sovereignty, so nat gov is still free to do so, they just can't use taxpayer money to pay for a platform since taxation of the people in those communities restricts local sovereignty.

In the comments, feel free to post your own thoughts on this topic, or reply to mine with any rebuttals, questions, or additional thoughts.

(also, this is my first post in this sub, sorry if I didn't adhere to some format for this kind of post.)

There are no qualifications required to hold political office. There is no job description, no educational requirements, no work experience required, no credit check, no background check, no drug test. Just be a certain age, US citizen and get the most votes.

Getting the most votes means being popular and being popular means telling people what they want to hear even if you don't mean it which is also okay in politics because honesty, integrity and character are also not required to hold political office. A politician can promise voters absolutely anything he wants and if elected has no obligation to honor his campaign promises.

So, if there are no qualifications to hold office, that means no one is qualified to hold office, it's a self-referential logical fallacy. Politics, like religion, is an illusion, a blatant lie. People are convinced of absurdities and are willing to commit atrocities but nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

Welcome back to the age of unenlightenment.

My political policy is inspired by Costa Rica, Europe, the UN, 2nd Great Awakening reform movements, and the teachings of Catholicism.
* I don’t like capitalism because it exploits workers, the environment, and the Global South while preventing the workers/proletariat from owning the means of production, though I’m not necessarily a communist because I believe in human nature, the right to own private property, compete in a market to promote innovation, and rewarding those who work hard, so I favor distributism. Taxes should be included in prices and tipped staff paid their fair share.
* Government revenue should be heavily invested in sustainable development such as affordable housing, healthcare, college tuition, renewable energy, public transit and high-speed rail, “15-Minute Cities” and less car dependency, reverse osmosis/desalination plants, organic/healthy food, and infrastructure investments in the Global South to make up for past military coups and exploitation of resources.
* People should be warned if their food contains GMOs or their water contains fluoride, but vaccines should be mandatory because of public health.
* I’m a strong proponent of democracy- referendums, ranked choice voting instant runoff, getting money out of politics, and the Wyoming Rule for House + Senate but House is by district while Senate is the whole state.
* I’m very globalist and multiculturalist, as my eventual goal is for a united human government operating like a hypothetical European federation or the UK’s constituent countries, with one court, one currency, one parliament, one defense/peacekeeping force, one travel zone, and one single market, plus all the organizations of the UN, but with the constituent countries having their own sports teams so that the Olympics and World Cup can still exist. It would be denuclearized, the subdivisions’ borders would be redrawn to match ethnic/linguistic/cultural lines, and constructed languages like Lidepla, Pandunia, Globasa, and Esperanto would be synthesized to create a truly global lingua franca.
* I notice atrocities and suffering in conflicts regardless of whether “my side” is the one involved in them.
* Official adoption of the metric system (but with Kelvin instead of Celsius because the nerds actually got that one right) and day/month/year.
* While personally religious, with my Catholicism having a strong influence on both my social and economic stances, I prefer the government to be secular, but not to the point of suppressing religion like France.
* I support a national ID card combining driver’s license, passport, Social Security card, voter registration, etc.
* Socially, I favor the consistent life ethic- anti-euthanasia/IVF/abortion (except for life-saving situations using indirect abortion under the principle of double effect), pro-family, pro-human/civil rights, pro-social justice, etc, while keeping sodomy and homosexual marriage legal. Gender transition, however, wouldn’t be recognized, because biology doesn’t change based on feelings.
* I’m conflicted on guns- gun violence is a huge issue, but one of my favorite historical figures is John Brown.
* “Nanny state” isn’t a bad word in my view. Alcohol, tobacco, and all other drugs that have no medical use should be banned. Marijuana should only be legal medically. Victimless crimes like gambling, prostitution, etc might be nanny-stated out of existence.
* Free speech and net neutrality are good. Censorship, both by governments and news/social media, have gotten out of hand.
* Policing should be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
* Private lawyers who can buy you justice should be replaced with public defenders.
* I hate liberalism because of the social and cultural degeneration it promotes through individualism and capitalism at the expense of community bonds, the working class/proletariat, public services, and collective responsibilities such as environmental stewardship and helping the vulnerable.
* Making the aforementioned societal vices illegal should also go hand in hand with addressing the root causes- for example, the socioeconomic, health, and rape reasons for abortion.
*Public facilities and third spaces are necessary for healthy society to flourish, regardless of what libertarian individualists say.
* I’m big on natural law, human dignity, obligation to others, and the idea that society owes people a baseline of decency.
* I’m not socially performative, caring little for policing language or online purity rituals and being uncomfortable with both right-wing moral panic and left-wing identity absolutism.
* The government should have initiatives to promote physical fitness and mental wellbeing.
* Small businesses should thrive while big corporations should be broken up and regulated.
*Diplomacy is preferable to violence.
*People should have a safety net to fall on, but they can’t stay on the net forever and they have to make an effort to get back to work eventually if they’re able.
*I’m pro-fair trade and pro-ethical farming.
*I oppose hunting for sport, even on non-endangered species.
*The playing field needs to be leveled as far as social mobility, but people still need to work hard.
* No one should be denied a job or a place at a university based on what they posted online, as it’s an invasion of privacy. There needs to be more privacy controls over data on people’s phones.

I think nations should maximize their economic and social freedom, as societies who are doing better in both are generally performing better. I support capitalism and a socially liberal society. I do believe in a lot of principles of Austrian economics and capitalism was historically a very successful system, but still has its flaws.

I am a strong supporter of reducing the bloat, spending, red tape, and overregulation in America that plagues many sectors. I resonate with Cato,
AEI, and ReasonTv

I also am still a supporter of a mixed economy with guardrails, public goods/services, some regulation, a lean welfare state to help people, and public options for certain things the free market can’t fairly distribute (if a country can do it cost effectively).

The most successful models have been mixed economies erring on the side of more economic freedom.

Every first world country is a mixed economy, and in practicality a democratic mixed economy is about as close to libertarianism as society can go (full on libertarianism doesn’t work). I know some might sound antithetical to libertarianism but I feel like those guardrails are needed to preserve freedom and prosperity.

What ideology would be closest to me? Any philosophers or thinkers I should check out?

While that country may not be perfect, it has at least marched toward the path of goodness. Though it has at times stagnated or even retreated, it has ultimately moved forward, inch by inch. My faith lies not in their government, but in the minds of its people—in their relentless obsession with freedom.

Of course, there will always be fierce debates over what constitutes goodness and justice, and whether the American perception of these ideals might appear as evil or injustice to others.

However, the essence of America lies not in perfection, but in their freedom to self-criticize and self-correct. Compared to closed, totalitarian regimes like North Korea—which entirely conceal and control their internal contradictions—America possesses a system that drags its own injustices and failures into the public square to be challenged. This freedom is their ultimate safeguard that guarantees a bare minimum of goodness.

America is fraught with internal conflicts, inequality, corruption, and flawed practices within its systems and political structures. Even as those citizens clash with conflicting ideas, their society will eventually find its way toward the right path. This is the power of self-correction that the entire span of American history has proven, far beyond the snapshot of the last ten years. As long as the grand premise of freedom remains unshaken, their national identity will correct its temporary errors and return to its true course.

Yet, to achieve this, they must not succumb to despair, resignation, or hatred. Instead, the American people must endure the tedious debates and take slow, deliberate steps toward turning ideals into reality—burning with a thirst for freedom. And I deeply, earnestly hope that my own homeland, South Korea, will do the same.

Additional Content
-Directory of Koryo-saram (Korean-ethnic) Victims (Confirmed Portion Only) : The number of victims recorded in the database alone is 10,478
-Victims in the Soviet Union Recorded in the Database (Confirmed Portion Only) : The number of victims recorded in the database alone is 7,324,686

https://hang1.or.kr/backhome-data/?bmode=view&idx=159867046
On October 25, 1937, Nikolai Yezhov reported the completion of the forced deportation of Koryo-saram from the Soviet Far East. A total of 171,781 individuals from 36,442 households were relocated. It is recorded that Koryo-saram fishermen remaining in Kamchatka, as well as those traveling on business, were transported by train on November 1. A total of 10,478 Koreans suffered from this persecution, consisting of 9,288 men and 1,190 women. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Korea disclosed the personal information of all these 10,478 Koryo-saram victims, including how they were arrested and what sentences they received, in the appendix of the research material. You can download and view the victim directory here. This registry specifically contains only the Koryo-saram victims.
In the source material, '총살' means execution by shooting.

https://www.memsearch.org/en/search?query=&page=1&entityTypes=0%2C1%2C2%2C3&searchSource=basememo%2Cstalin%2Ctopos%2Cmapofmemmory%2Csandormoh%2Clevashovo%2Ckp%2Coldmemo%2Cgulagonline%2Cperm36%2Cmuseum%2Cpmem%2Cmemoir%2Cknigapmem%2Ckrsk%2Ciofe%2Cstopgulag%2Cnkvdmemo%2Cnkvdtomsk%2Copenlist%2Cjdoc%2Ckobylaki%2Carchivememo
The number of victims recorded in the database alone is 7,324,686.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about one issue that seems to affect nearly everyone, regardless of political party: good jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.
Because of that, I’ve started American Workforce PAC, an organization focused on advocating for policies that strengthen America’s workforce, modernize infrastructure, and promote long-term economic opportunity.
I’m not here to ask for donations or convince anyone to agree with me. I’m genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives.

Some questions I’d love to discuss:

What do you think is the biggest obstacle to creating more good-paying jobs in the U.S.?

If Congress could only pass one major infrastructure project over the next five years, what should it be?

Are there workforce policies—education, apprenticeships, manufacturing, transportation, or something else—that you think deserve more attention?

I’m still building the organization, so feedback is incredibly valuable. Whether you agree or disagree, I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts and having a respectful discussion.

Humanity faces countless challenges—poverty, inequality, war, climate change, discrimination, corruption, misinformation, and many more. But are these separate problems, or are they symptoms of something deeper?

If we could identify and solve one fundamental problem that would help address many of these issues, what should it be?

Is it education, inequality, concentration of power, lack of critical thinking, tribalism, greed, weak institutions, or something deeper about human nature itself?

What do you think is the root problem, and what is the most practical solution we can collectively work toward?

Let's go beyond the symptoms and try to find the root.

I don’t know many Americans in real life, but I at least get the sense from the internet that a lot of Americans loathe Trump and everything he stands for. I think that a lot of the narrative feels very virtue signaling though - people make jokes about him, call him silly names, but he is actively causing so much harm domestically and internationally. On a whim he stop and starts the attacks on Iran, thousands have already died. Why aren’t people out there protesting? The argument you sometimes see is ‘people have their own lives to get on with’ but that’s the case in Iran, in Algeria, in India, in Nepal, in every country that has had recent protests. And that includes Western countries like France, or Spain, or England where you would see massive rallies every week about Gaza, and none of those countries are as complicit as the US in the Palestinian genocide.

I’m not trying to attack anyone here, I really just want to know why physical protest is such an underutilised form of resistance in the US because frankly, from the outside, the American left seems to be incredibly self-centred and virtue signalling, and not at all willing to even take a few hours out of their weekends to fight back against a dictator.

I find it strange that Central and Eastern Europe are often much more socially conservative, considering that they were under communist regimes that, at least officially, supported things like atheism, more liberal abortion policies, and gender equality. Is there a possibility that this could change over time?
In Poland, for example, I saw posts about the president vetoing a law that would have helped with inheritance rights for same-sex couples. What is going on with the rise of ultranationalism and conservatism in these countries? It surprises me because I come from Greece, which is also a conservative country, but generally more moderate on these issues. I don’t really understand the mentality in post-Soviet and post-communist countries.
They strongly dislike Russia, but instead of doing the exact opposite of Russia’s policies, some of them seem to follow a similar direction in terms of nationalism and social conservatism.

In a democratic republic, elected officials are meant to represent their voters. The US implemented this system of government when having a physical representative was necessary. Normal citizens could not travel for every vote, and did not have access to all relevant information (nor intelligence) regarding issues up for a vote. There were only so many printed copies of said information, or oral evidence that could not be recorded.

Modern technology and education solves most these problems.

Individual citizens could easily access relevant information and vote individually online, without any need for a representative to essentially guess their opinion.

Some would say this opens the door for potential voting fraud or tampering, or having voters that are not “experts” making governmental decisions (mob rule). However, I’d argue these issues already exist within the democratic republic system and are only exacerbated by politicians vying to keep their positions in government. A potential for “hacking” will always exist in any form of democracy.

Obviously there would still need to be some type of rotation of duty to shepherd a fully democratic process, maybe requiring elected or appointed lawyers and judges.

For example in the US, certain states could still be given more or less weight in voting. This could essentially eliminate the original need for the House of Representatives. The senate could still function as check of power with elected officials as the legislators. This would be a hybrid system, but still closer to direct democracy.

State and local governments could function similarly, and I think a big impact could be seen at a state level. Local representatives are often intentionally opaque and fly under the radar - individual voting would bring direct attention to local issues that directly affect residents. We see a spark of this currently regarding the building of data centers.

The harder it becomes to vote, the less of a democracy a country becomes. Do you think existing technology should be utilized to foster more pure democracy?

Corporations are literally kicking people out of their homes just to put data centers in their place

When a farmers land gets seized by politicians funded by the AI lobby that’s considered free market capitalism

However if people exercise their rights in democracy and have the politicians seizing the means of production on behalf of the working class then all the sudden it’s considered theft

It’s nothing more than the inherent double standards that are built into capitalist systems

If a person owns a house corporations can just seize the house and land because they pay bribes to politicians but when the working class seizes corporate property than all the sudden seizing property is a bad thing

I want to be clear, I love the scientific method and using logic and rationality to better understand the world. I recognize its importance in making well-informed decisions. Hell, most of the pleasures we enjoy are because of it.

Here's what I have a problem with. Take Medicare for all, for example. If you want to be taken seriously, you HAVE to argue from an economic angle. You gotta talk about how paying into Universal Healthcare would drive costs down for every hard-working, middle-class citizen. No longer relying on employment for insurance. Objectively making you more free in how you live your life.

Why can't I just say "because it's the right thing to do." Why the fuck are we even here to begin with? We're all trapped on the confusing, beautiful, terrifying planet together. We bent nature to our needs with this bizarre intelligence and conscious experience we all have. A deeply social species that feels for its fellow man.

We're all that we have. Yeah, it sounds like a childish niave notion, "why cant we all just get along, world peace, blah blah blah". I know its not that simple. Our history is brutal and unkind. An honest look at that history is hard to do when we're so quick to other someone we dont understand. I dont know how to fix that.

There's this insane dissonance I feel literally being able to sit in my comfy chair in my comfy house and watch actual footage of people killing each other overseas in real time. What the fuck are we doing here?! I saw a news segment thats only angle was economic on Iran. People are dying!

I understand the importance of a healthy economy. But it's because of our cooperation that we've come this far. Trading with other countries, aiding them in times of crisis to maintain stable trade routes. You get it.

I guess im just feeling pretty down. I feel like all im seeing is people talking past each other. People foaming at the mouth to see the other side get owned.

We're stuck here together. We may as well try to have a good time, right? I know its niave, but i literally never see this perspective shared in any mainstream capacity.

Am I just another crazy hippy idiot still dumb enough to believe we're worth fighting for.

The rules say that posts must be political fundamentals. Okay then here are a few indisputable political fundamentals. People take political institutions as given, unquestionable, an axiomatically necessary existence. It's blasphemous to even acknowledge the king ain't wearing no clothes. So given that unassailable truth what can we do? Well we can bitch and squabble about left and right. Ever watch congressional hearings where some politician is questioning some other politician and they repeat themselves over and over, they talk over one another, they raise their voices and call each other names and nothing is accomplished? Immature, unprofessional, childish noise that people take so serious like it matters and which taxpayers are forced to finance. Why isn't anyone angry about that? I mean the objective nature of politics rather than the mindless subjective minutiae of left-right?

Politicians can do this because political office has no job description and there are no qualifications required to hold office. No educational requirements, no work experience, no credit check, no drug test, no background check, just get the most votes and are in. Isn't Trump a convicted felon? (Now watch people think I'm a libtard 🙄). Maybe that's why congressional hearings are more like Jerry Springer than intelligent discourse.

If elected the politician doesn't even have to go to the office, we've all seen the empty seats in congressional chambers on C-SPAN. In fact they have no "job" in the traditional sense like you and me, they don't produce anything so go to the office don't go it's irrelevant. There's no time clock to punch, no boss to make happy, hell you can't even be fired. The incentive structure is so perverse it breeds inefficiency and corruption, it bears so resemblance to reality. Why isn't anyone angry about that?

Lobbying is legalized bribery. Make a handsome donation to their re-election campaign or charitable foundation and they'll sponsor and vote for new laws that you want that force everyone to do what you want them to do. Every social issue is an issue only because of politics and the force it brings to bear on everyone for the special interests of a few.

These are just a few fundamental truths about politics that nobody wants to touch, it's like humanity is so hypnotized they can't see the forest through the trees so they bitch about the trees blocking their view. The merry-go-round just keeps going round and round, nothing is every resolved, nothing ever changes but the merry-go-round MUST persist. Insanity.

Until the nature of politics changes and the incentive structure aligns with society nothing will ever change and all the "debates" are meaningless nonsense to occupy one's time.

I've been thinking a lot about the relationship between citizens and government. Not about one party or one election, but about a question that sits at the foundation of any democracy

This is my attempt to put that question into words.

What obligations do citizens have to their government, and what obligations does government have to the citizens who give it authority?

That question is not a luxury. It is the foundation upon which every free society stands.

A government is not the master of its people. It is not a throne built above them. It is a tool created by them, paid for by them, and entrusted to those who temporarily hold its power.

The authority of government does not come from a title. It does not come from a building, a uniform, or a position on a ballot. It comes from the consent of the people.

And consent is not an unlimited resource.

Citizens are told they have obligations. We are told to pay our taxes. We are told to follow the laws. We are told to sacrifice when the nation calls. We are asked to send our sons and daughters into conflicts, to work harder, to accept hardship, and to trust that those decisions are being made for the good of the country.

But trust is not a one-way street.

A government that demands sacrifice must prove it deserves sacrifice. A government that collects the labor of its people must respect the value of that labor. A government that holds the power to shape the lives of millions must remember that every number on a spreadsheet represents a person, a family, a future.

The people are not a resource to be harvested. They are not a machine that produces taxes. They are not subjects waiting for permission to speak.

They are the source.

When those in power forget this, when accountability becomes optional, when promises are treated as political tools instead of moral commitments, the distance between the governed and those governing begins to grow.

Democracy does not collapse only when a dictator takes a throne. It can also weaken slowly, quietly, when people lose faith that their voices matter. When citizens begin to believe that the system was built to serve itself rather than them.

The answer is not hatred of government. A society without order becomes chaos. A nation without institutions cannot protect its people.

The answer is responsibility.

Citizens must demand better from themselves and from those they elect. They must stay informed. They must participate. They must refuse to surrender their voice simply because the process is difficult.

And those who hold power must remember this:

You were not given authority because you are superior. You were given authority because the people trusted you to serve.

That trust is not permanent. It is earned every day.

The government does not own the people.

The people created the government.

And any government that forgets that truth should expect its citizens to remind it.

Rich people pay a disproportionate amount of taxes and almost never have any direct use for social services. This dis-proportionality is constant every where in the world: no one is crazy enough to try a flat tax. The middle class also rarely uses social services but are one bad accident away from being dependent on them for the rest of their life. Charity doesn't change the situation: the vast majority of charitable contributions are deducted from taxes, so reducing taxes reduces charity.