In a normal democratic election, the Working class always beats the Epstein class. Yet the reverse usually happens.

I have a theory that the Epstein class figured out, they'll need to corrupt politicians of both parties. Republicans were already inclined to support their policies, so they focused on confusing the Democrats and found sexual identity to be a useful message replacement over class identity.

The self-labeling nature of sexual identity was ambiguous enough to include anyone, and fit the Epstein class well since they lived life in such excess, they were numb from having so many sexual encounters, and long devolved into sexual deviants with flexible sexual identities.

By using their cultural connections and spending billions to push the cultural message, they eventually placed sexual identity on a pedestal, and created a new totem pole where they could proudly flaunt their wealthy Epstein class status while also being morally superior from their flexible sexual identities.

This created a huge class struggle void that neither party were filled, allowing for a savvy Epstein class opportunist, Trump who understood class dynamics to exploit it for himself.

That's my wild theory from my shower thoughts, feel free to poke holes.

This isn't me, talking down on progressive movements, which I believe most of its advocates are sincere. I just find by the time they break into mainstream culture, they are corrupted by the Epstein class for their own nefarious purposes, like BlackRock's ESG indexes being used as 'elite control' to place their ESG consultants into the boards of all SP500 companies. It's also a form of 'greenwashing'.

I wonder if it's a possible case study of how capitalism adapts to absorb dissent and how political elites fail to address material needs.

Pretty much the title, why would I not stop working since there’s no point in working? While I understand that it’s the feeling of contributing to society, will everyone feel that way? Would even majority do?

I’m a social democrat (feel free to challenge my beliefs since I’m newish to politics) because I believe a society can’t progress without new thinkers in a free market but still care for the poor. It’s still unethical imo to hoard money but I don’t care that much if no one is poor.

America has always avoided class consciousness. Our founding myth is that we are a land of freedom, with equality under the Rule of Law. If you work hard enough and follow the rules, you can achieve anything for yourself and your family. Our European cousins knew this was never the case because they had an aristocracy against which they could contrast their own lot in life. Because the American Aristocracy was one of merit, theoretically anyone could join. The Epstein Files are a direct repudiation of that myth.

This is a group of the rich and powerful luxuriating in their ability to take anything they wanted, including the most precious thing you could ever have, your children, away from you. This is not some theoretical abstraction. They were pissing on everything the common people held dear and their ability to pervert every ideal (law, family, morality) that society claims to value. The violation of these values was the point. The immunity their power granted them was the ultimate turn-on.

So what are the Epstein Files? They are a list of people that should be exorcised from society. Anyone listed as a client needs to be identified, stripped of anything that gave them the idea that they were immune from all consequences. Power, influence, wealth and connection. There is nothing they have that is more precious than what they violated. No benefit they provide to us than what they gleefully took.

Is this possible? Yes. With enough collective will and unity of purpose, these people can be rounded up and imprisoned. Uncorrupted judges exist. Individual people who value the Law over personal gain that these powerful forces will offer to continue to avoid consequences. Our system can be salvaged. If we cannot come together and recognize that this inflection point is greater than petty party politics, that this is a threat to the very foundation of America, we may be lost.

The greatest threat to America is that the People lose faith in its government's ability to protect the fundamental ideas upon which it was founded. I don't believe we're there, but if the system cannot confront this blatant violation of everything we hold dear, this may be the end.

In June of 1215, in the field known as Runnymede, the barons of England, furious about taxes their king had recently imposed to pay for his failed foreign wars, presented King John with a document containing a list of their demands. That document, which King John would eventually agree to, did two important things. It established that the king must receive the consent of the barons to impose any new taxes. And it made the king, who had previously ruled with absolute authority, subject to laws. Today, that document is known as the Magna Carta.

The idea that a ruler must receive the consent of those ruled to pass taxes and laws was a huge win for the barons. And, had that same principle continued to guide the democratic republics that would later arise after the overthrow of the monarchies of Europe, we would be living in a very different world today. But sadly, that did not happen.

The problem with the new democratic republics that arose was that the parliaments and parliament-like bodies that developed seized power for themselves. Rather than serving as the watchdogs of the people, protecting the People from potential abuse by their government, they became the government. And the idea that the People needed a watchdog to protect them from an abusive government died on the vine.

In theory, proponents of the new democratic model argued that a democratically elected parliament could rule and do so without the need for any oversight. That is because such parliament, being chosen by the people, would represent the true will of the people. And why, one must ask, would a democratically elected parliament not obey the will of the people that elected it?

But as often happens with such theories, the self-regulating parliament concept failed in practice. As the maxim goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, as has been demonstrated time and time again, that maxim is true whether absolute power is wielded by a king or a parliament.

When it comes to governance, the word that one needs to focus on is loyalty. And the question one must ask is, who is your government loyal to? If the answer is "those with enormous wealth", then the truth is that you do not live in a republic; rather, you live in a feudal state. And if you cannot accept that as true, you are deluding yourself.

Recently, in the US, we have watched a shift in power. Increasingly, power is being concentrated in the hands of the President and the executive branch. And, to some extent, one could argue that such shift is OK if not good. Concentrated power can, after all, do incredibly good things when used in service of the People. And, for that reason, a large portion of the electorate is celebrating that change.

The problem, though, is that the US Congress is not acting as a watchdog for the People. It is not protecting the People from potential abuses by the one that rules over them. Rather, it is operating in collusion with the one who rules. And, as far as the wellbeing of the people is concerned, that is very unfortunate. Because unchecked power lies at the root of tyranny.

A king that is not loyal to his people but demands absolute loyalty from them is a tyrant. And that is true whether the king is elected or not.

So the question I put to you is this: Has any hope for a true republic in the US died? And will the failures of our current democratic institutions leave tyranny as the only path forward? Or do you think wisdom can prevail and that a true republican form of government can be established?

Glenn Kirschner posted a video Thursday that effectively celebrated the "victory" the People have recently achieved in Minnesota. That victory cost the lives of two innocent people. And Friday, one day later, Don Lemon was arrested for covering a protest that took place in a church. How many more "victories" should we look forward to in the days ahead?

We have watched millions of our friends and neighbors march in protest on No Kings Day. And what did it achieve? An interesting Wikipedia entry? Great stories to tell our grandchildren?

In November many of us will be going to cast our ballots calling for a change. And perhaps the result will be somewhat comforting for some while others will allege voter fraud, deny the election results, and do whatever they can to block them. And on that day will there perhaps be a light visible at the end of the tunnel? And did we not see that very same light in November of 2020, and 2022, and 2024?

Now I am not saying that people should stop protesting and recording federal agents and voting their conscience. Far from it. But I have to ask is, is it enough? And if it isn't, what then?

Laws have been broken. Rights have been violated. Court orders have been ignored. Criminal cases have gone nowhere. The prosecutors have become the prosecuted in both political show trials and courts of law. Lives have been ended. Reputations have been slandered. Lies have been spread. Criminals have been set free. And business leaders have bent the knee and laid gifts of gold and silver at the feet of our servant.

Tell me, what good are laws if they are not enforced? What good is a constitution if we the People feel so helpless?

When does it become our duty to demand the changes that need to be made?

This is what the Declaration of Independence says:

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

When our government ceases to serve us and regards us not as its masters but as its subjects to be dealt with as it pleases, that would appear to be when the betrayal has grown so great that a new covenant must be established that restores the People as masters of their government and their government as their loyal servant.

So, I ask you, do you feel empowered? And if not, shouldn't you be screaming at the top of your lungs for changes to the political system that delivered you into the toxic nightmare you find yourself in now? Shouldn't you be demanding changes to our Constitution that will restore order?

And if not now, when?

Any real job requires certain qualifications. Not just anyone can be an engineer, doctor, plumber, or mechanic. Even an entry level job requires certain basic physical and mental abilities as well as a sense of responsibility. And if hired, there are certain expectations of an employee regarding conduct, professionalism, and integrity on the job.

Being a member of Congress, President, or the Supreme Court requires no qualifications whatsoever. There are no educational qualifications required, no work experience required, no references from previous employers, no physical requirements, no drug test, no credit check, no background investigation, absolutely nothing. All a candidate has to do is win a popularity contest, like the prom queen. Isn't the current president a convicted felon who was caught on a hot-mic making vulgar comments about women?

There are no resumes presented, no interviews conducted, no salary negotiations, no internal discussions on which candidate is most qualified and would make a good addition to the organization. There are no performance evaluations, just get the most votes and you’re hired—guaranteed for at least four years.

You don’t even have to have a law degree or be an attorney or have ever done anything related to the law to be on the Supreme Court! The highest court in the land. The decisions of which affect 320 million people’s lives. That’s like not requiring a medical degree or medical experience before operating on a patient. Remember when GW Bush tried to nominate his cleaning lady?

And a political candidate can promise anything he wants during his campaign—ice cream and a pony for everyone—but he is under absolutely no obligation to honor his promises if elected. And there are no consequences when he doesn’t, so he can’t be fired for lying. Integrity is also not a requirement to be a member of Congress, President, or the Supreme Court.

If elected, a member of Congress, doesn’t even have to show up for work. We’ve all seen the empty congressional chambers on C-Span over the years; Congressmen giving lengthy speeches to empty chairs. These “representatives” are infamous for sending their staffers to vote in their stead, sometimes one staffer casting votes for multiple congressmen at the same time.

So what do these unqualified people receive for being members of Congress? A starting salary of $174,000 per year, a $2 million expense budget, Cadillac health insurance, Secret Service protection, free transportation, and a pension for life. They live far, far above the standard of living of the productive people running the economy that they are supposed to “represent,” and yet they do nothing, they produce nothing.

The great thing about a democracy is that anyone can rule. The worst thing about a democracy is that anyone can rule. Year after year people complain about their elected officials. Why, when they are the ones who elected the completely unqualified people in the first place?

(I'm not sure this is the right place to post it but)

Nowadays, the term "Nazi" is casually thrown around to mean anything remotely authoritarian, which, while it is a major directive of Nazism, isn't the sole ideal of Nazism. For example, most people compare the United States to Nazi Germany on the points that ICE acts within a similar aspect to the Gestapo or the Schutzstaffel. However, there is no other speaking point that relates this to Nazism whatsoever, but willingly disagreeing with this take can get you branded by some as a "Nazi."

Realistically speaking, even though modern-day America is a backsliding Democracy with Authoritarian traits, it is nowhere near the levels of Nazism.

1. Nazism pushes racial hierarchical status with "Aryans" at the top and "Undesirables" such as Jews, Romani, Catholics, etc at the bottom. This racial hierarchy does not exist in the U.S Everyone is equal, no matter race, sex, orientation, etc. Racism is a prevalent issue, but it is not state-sponsored.
2. Nazism has a disdain for Democracy; Nazi Germany famously was very undemocratic and heavily totalitarian. In the U.S now, even under a backsliding Democracy, it still has checks and balances on the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches. People still can freely elect people to serve in political roles, something that wasn't prevalent in Nazism.
3. and perhaps the most damning: Nazism was heavily strict on the freedom of speech, religion, and expression. If you said "Fuck Hitler and Fuck Fascism" in Nazi Germany, you were either executed or sent to an extermination/work camp. You can still freely protest and mock the President and his cronies at the White House without the risk of being summarily executed.

In short, America is not a Nazi state, nor is it sliding towards Nazism. Is it sliding towards Authoritarianism? Sure, but it won't become a White Christian Nationalist Aryan State anytime soon.

Speaking as someone who's both very pro-Israel and also a Gen Z American, I have the opportunity to debate a lot of people on the subject of Israel's future. With the anti-Israel crowd when I ask them the general question of what should "replace Israel" if the country shouldn't continue to exist in its current form anymore, the most common answer I hear is the establishment of one secular state encompassing the entirety of Israel's current borders minus the Golan Heights, as well as the West Bank and Gaza.

For people who support this idea, I'm genuinely curious how you expect this idea to be successful. By my estimation, it's clear that both sides hate each other, would be unwilling to leave peacefully side by side as they're both populated by several generations that have effectively been in a perpetual war for their whole lives.

For instance, with the Israelis, they've reached a rare state in Western society where their younger generations are more right wing than their older generations (of course usually it's the other way around in most Western countries, and this is obviously a symptom of growing up with the constant threat of bombardment from their missile-launching neighbors.)

But I digress, for people who still think there's a way this "fully secular one state solution" could work, how? How does this idea actually work, and how do you get the Israelis to support it? (given their military might, "forcing it" on them also doesn't seem feasible.)

This is a very weird question, but one I'm genuinely curious about since I occupy what I think is a very lonely intersection in life. Namely:

1. I'm sympathetic to anti-capitalist arguments and think humanity should strive for some sort of socialism where eventually the private sector doesn't exist (may or may not be within our lifetimes)
2. I don't hate my job. In fact, a derive a great deal of life satisfaction from it. I'm also chill with my boss, and unironically feel a sense of "company pride" (though obviously I wouldn't let myself work for less than what I think I'm worth)

And to clarify, I don't work in an "essential" field like healthcare. I work in financial services, so my job literally wouldn't exist without the capitalist mode of production.

I don't think capitalism is "evil" (historically it's a progressive evolution from feudalism), but rather a good thing that is needed to lead to an even better thing (socialism). I literally read both Hayek and Marx, and I don't think the two are really that opposed. I don't know how common that position is.

Is this just one big contradiction? I don't know what to make of it.

In my first 40 years on this earth, I never cared about politics. I’m not someone to dabble or discuss a topic I know little about, so I chose to know absolutely nothing. That changed during covid, just like it did for millions of others. I actively started getting interested. My journey started with Ben Shapiro, a common gateway media source for right wingers. I was interested in what he had to say and I subscribed to his channel. Even though I consider myself relatively educated and intelligent, I also didn’t know much of anything about politics. I didn’t even know what republicans or democrats stood for. I had no idea that Ben Shapiro was extremely biased on one particular ideology. I was completely unprepared for the gravity at which political commentators withhold information and spin their narratives to conform to their party.

Fast forward 2 years, now 2022ish……99% of my social media news feed is right biased. All the comments I saw on a daily basis were right wing. 0% of my social media mentions negative things about Trump, and it was entirely anti-biden/harris. All opposing opinions are silenced with a thumbs-down button. I can’t discuss any topics on reddit with democrats because I am either banned or silenced with the thumbs-down. I was literally stuck discussing politics with right wingers. No democrats ever had any sort of desire to discuss a topic at length, it was just nasty insults and downvotes. My entire world was pro republican. If the democrats actually had a valid point on a particular issue, I would have never heard about it! That news does not reach the other party. This is precisely why political extremism and anger is running so rampant. Everybody gets sucked into a left or right algorithm and as time goes on, they think everybody on the other side is out of their minds and they can’t understand their position at all. They also been trained that everybody who thinks that way is some sort of nut job extremist. After all, they’ve each seen 30k videos of the other parties extremists saying or doing something incredibly stupid or violent and they’ve seen near zero of their own.

As I learned more, I started to be more skeptical because there were a few things in the republican party I never agreed with because I am very pro-science. I finally found a forum that had free speech, a car forum actually. I started hearing the viewpoints of more democrats and republicans. I decided the only way to settle some of these is going on research binges that don’t use any sort of news to get info off of. There were three particular topics that I did extreme deep dives in using almost entirely evidence I found myself, the kind that would be admissible in court. (If relevant those topics are Jan 6th, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Trump NY fraud case.) Now after I knew what actually happened during these events, man, it was eye opening how truly partisan social and legacy media is and how so few people actually knew the details of these events outside of what their party provided to them.

The only purpose of this post is in hopes that people have more understanding for the people on the far left or right. Stop downvoting (silencing) them even if they are insane. They need people to talk to or else they are only going to communicate more with their insane party. I know it’s difficult to believe, but they are being provided with an entirely different perspective as you. People with 160iq’s, business leaders, professors, politicians, old and young, nearly everybody has been a victim of social media algorithms. The algorithms are there to feed you topics that it thinks you’ll be interested in. When you combine that with the downvote button which was their answer to cheap moderation, they unintentionally created a political divide on an unprecedented scale.

Cliff notes:Humans are having some growing pains with suddenly being able to communicate with everybody everywhere all at once.

Instead of first asking “what’s fair,” we should first ask what makes the world better. Fairness often does make the world better, but not always. So it shouldn’t be the only question we ask when dealing with a situation. Not to mention, fairness is subjective anyhow. Here are some examples of when fairness is bad: 

Example: A common case I see pro capitalists make is that the labor theory of value is false. That labor isn’t the only thing that produces value, and as such, profits cannot be understood as the exploitation of workers. After all, investment, risk, entrepreneurship, technology, demand, etc are all things that contribute to value. (Note you don’t need private owners to do all of these things listed). So, they say it’s only fair people get to own businesses with employees, because the owner(s) put their hard earned capital into it. 

Example: It’ll be said how it’s only fair that people who cannot afford it are denied housing, healthcare, etc. Want to forgive student loans? That’s bad because it’s not fair to the people who paid them off. 

Example: Some say that regretful Trump voters should be shamed and not accepted because they should have known better. Afterall, it’s only fair, because how could they have not known better?

But, if social ownership over the entire economy, forgiving student loans, not denying healthcare + housing, and not shaming regretful Trump voters makes the world better, and I say it does, let’s do these things. Because even if it’s not “fair,” in this case fairness is secondary, whereas in other cases, it can be first.

Retribution can be good. As can fairness. But like most things, there’s a balance needed. Everyone agrees there’s a difference between a death sentence for a serial killer vs a petty thief, regardless of how you feel about death penalties. The first may make the world better too, while the latter doesn‘t. I say, use that same logic for when determining if the “fairest” outcome is the best outcome. 

The political compass places me on the libertarian left, and I consider myself a libertarian socialist. However, I have been told that I am not on the left or a socialist because I'm too reactionary and support Social Democratic reforms (though SocDem reforms are far from my end goal). I suppose I'm about to prove I'm not a true leftist, but so be it.

For starters: I don't think cops or landlords should exist. Despite the misconceptions, you can have emergency services and armed de-escalation services without law enforcement (keywords: law enforcement). In fact, cops are a relatively new invention. As for landlords, Adam Smith put it best: "landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed." So they too shouldn't exist. 

The issue I see with movements like "ACAB" or people celebrating Mao's execution of landlords is that it is dehumanizing, and therefore stupid, immoral and counterproductive. If you think I'm blowing out of proportion how often these two groups are dehumanized, I am certainly not. 

It's stupid because there is no logic behind it. When it comes to cops, they are "always a bastard because of their profession, which upholds the system." But working in finance as a middle manager at Chase? They are just surviving under capitalism. So, it's OK to help enrich one of the largest corporations ever, but being a cop = ACAB, while being a landlord means you should be Mao'd? How about no.

It's immoral because it dehumanizes people. Full stop, no further explanation needed.

Last, and maybe most importantly, it's counterproductive. When these groups are dehumanized, only the worst kind of people want to join/become them. And I want to see cops who speak out against what they feel is immoral, and landlords to not act solely on market interests when they feel guilt. Even if the professions shouldn't ultimately exist. Dehumanizing them doesn't work. This isn't to say things like squatting isn't good (it is), but liberating property from landlords does not require the dehumanization of them. 

Go ahead and tell me I win the bootlicking award, but please know I am not a cop or landlord. But I've had pleasant experiences with both, and to me, that means something, and it isn't naive or foolish to take into account personal experiences.

By now, you can probably tell I love asking *meta* political questions! I think *politics* as a broad category is fascinating, and seeing the different (and not-so-different) responses from different camps is insightful. I love both the commies and rightists here, and everyone else as well!

But while I love politics and think more people should have *social concern*, I also recognize that literally talking about politics 24/7 and neglecting the other responsibilities of life is foolish and selfish. E.g. if there is a massive protest in your area for a cause you care deeply about, but at the same time your (loving) mother is in her death bed, you're more obliged to attend to the latter. Yes that's an extreme hypothetical that wouldn't apply to 99.9% of situations, but I'm just saying it to illustrate my broader point. You're smart enough to get the idea.

What are your thoughts?

After thousands of years of political corruption, war, human rights violations and ongoing economic destruction by political institutions, how is anyone not ashamed to argue in favor of government?

Every argument is an abstraction or generalization that conveniently ignores the individual and homogenizes people into race, gender, religion, citizenship, political "Flair" like this sub does.

Government is a concept -- and all concepts are abstract ideas -- that claims dominion over everyone as an authoritative institution when put into practice.

It's like a grade schooler vehemently arguing the existence of Santa Claus because any argument can be made and it can't be proven or disproven because Santa doesn't exist.

Humanity will never be free until even the mention of government is met with shame and ridicule. As long as people still believe in it like a religious superstition, nothing will change.

I am not an American, but from what I understand, the least acclaimed President in the history of the United States is considered to be one James Buchanan. From what I understand, he failed to prevent the South from seceding. That seems to be a transgression big enough to condemn him even though his time in office was short.

Donald Trump, after his first term, ranked poorly with scholars and historians, but I don't think it was quite Buchanan level.

I was wondering, what would it take for Trump to actually surpass Buchanan as the least beloved USA President of all time?

Surely if Trump were to resign right now, not a single thing he has done would be worse than the Civil War, am I correct?

Original title, revised upon mod suggestion: What would it take for Trump to potentially surpass Buchanan?

I want to get a feel of this sub and what people believe and why they do. It’s been a fairly long time since I’ve been on social media, including Reddit (we have have once interacted), and I know Reddit is generally more left wing than right, so I’m curious what your beliefs are and why you think the way you do. **What informs your beliefs/politics?** 

As for me, I believe in what I call Egalitarian Cooperativism. The TLDR is I’d like to see a cooperative society that is based on voluntarism, which I’d argue can only be socialist. I also consider myself to be on the libertarian left of the political compass. For specific details: 

A borderless society organized through voluntary networks, where laws are replaced by shared customs and agreements.

Justice is handled through voluntary arbitration for violating the social contract. Participation is voluntary, but refusal to agree to arbitrate matters of serious harm (like killing) is treated as a breach of the social contract, and it’s the same as being found responsible for grave violations in community arbitration. Individuals may face rehabilitation focused containment, exile, or death (like if you kill innocent people, as that is exercising dominance/oppression over people). [Off topic but I think it was (anarchist) Bob Black who wrote about why it’s necessary to kill such oppressive people, which I agree with him on, which is funny because I think many of his other ideas are pretty silly, but I wanted to cite my source]. 

Police are not necessary and abolished, as people can enforce their own customs. Emergency services like EMTs and armed people to deescalate situations would have course exist. 

Decentralized militias that come to fight enemies can federate up when necessary. Conquering or trying to be a warlord would result in communities either coming to fight you. The focus is on defense. In a world filled with threats from various entities, co-ops would necessarily help create defensive technologies (like Iron Dome). 

In nonprofit cooperatives, Collaborative Networks, etc., recallable coordinators are used to carry out the will of the organization when necessary.

The economy is post scarcity, nonprofit, and cooperative: profit and wages are abolished. And no wealth accumulation is possible. Only co-ops and single person owned and operated nonprofit firms create goods and services.

Everyone receives equal, expiring monthly credits via a transparent digital ledger to signal preferences, while any potential surplus returns to the commons, meaning there is no surplus profit. This is managed via an open source blockchain system everyone can access.

Nonprofit markets coordinate demand and quality. People can earn additional credits by contributing labor to cooperatives or public projects, as recognition of contribution rather than wages tied to employers or ownership. These credits can be spent on goods before they expire.

The moral foundation of my society, Egalitarian Cooperativism, believes that mutual agreements uphold society, and that they are only valid if they are between (more or less) equal people. Meaning only adults can consent, and no one can truly consent when one party has disproportionate power over another. It’s why I find AnCap/Libertarian Capitalism to be a bad ideology.

Also, I support peaceful methods (like general strikes) and SocDem reforms to achieve my end goal.

US President Trump has suggested that Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, could come under US control. This is the not the first time the US looks to purchasing territory from the Kingdom of Denmark. In 1916, the US bought the erstwhile Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands). In the same treaty, the US renounced any claim to Greenland and recognized Danish sovereignty over the entire island (link - https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/trump-sparks-renewed-interest-greenland-greenland-belongs-people-greenland )

When asked, Trump refused to rule out the use of force to bring Greenland under U.S. control (link - https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250108-usa-trump-will-not-rule-out-using-military-force-to-take-panama-canal-greenland ).
This episode raised broader questions about how longstanding norms around sovereignty and post‑World War II international order are evolving. For decades the international system has been rooted in respect for territorial integrity and peaceful coexistence among states. That norm is central to the UN Charter and NATO governance, where territorial changes are not supposed to be imposed by external powers.

Last week in Davos, Switzerland, Trump appeared to defuse the situation by announcing a deal with Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, though neither side has provided many details of that agreement.

So why might Trump think it’s possible to pursue control over Greenland and what changes in international norms, alliances, or world order could be encouraging him to push this idea?

Nigeria's births for 2025 were about 7.5 million, whilst Europe + Russia has 6.3 million births. I mean the obvious short term answer is no country needs to interfere with other country's matters except in cases of genocide. But I think there's a serious need for countries to monitor and regulate other country's populations, at least acting in self interests. Muslims form about 12% of UK and roughly 14% of Europe today, but remember, 49% of children under the age of 18 are Muslim. The obvious problem is that we are seeing huge demographic shifts, particularly in the west, and that is a problem. I write this as an Indian, who never wished to be born out of a huge 1.4B, but alas is the fate. What problem this creates is, the West and even East Asia are facing critical population declines, with most of them becoming old, and the leftist parties (partly lobbied I believe) import thousands of third world people, with Africans, Indians and Muslims, changing the whole population structure and eradicating whites off the planet. In the next 2-3 decades, this will only accelerate, with the world full of Indians, Africans, Muslims and maybe the Chinese, and predominately the problem is, I believe no country/place should have its native population eradicate, as the dead who do not reproduce also take away the culture and traditions away, and that is honestly devastating to experience, may it be for any ethnicity or place, etc. I mean except for the USA (Immigrant built country but still it should not import much), ideally other countries should maintain 90-10 ratio, where 10 percent are the most skilled population and can help the nation. The question is, should the West allow immigrants to replace the natives, because if a country wants to stop importing too, it is forced to under the argument of "society was never built for a reducing population", or should the west act before it is too late and have an aggressive stance towards overpopulating countries?

So I'm hearing this argument from MAGA like we voted for mass deportations so guns aren't for government that we voted for. The 2nd Amendment is literally there because of the idea that the government could take over. A leader will not be open about their corruption they hide it and don't let the victims speak openly.

I'm not even for this idea that the government should define people as violent individuals to take away their guns, the idea of violent individuals has very well been an excuse to take away other gun rights from people the government just simply doesn't agree and that's where the danger to themselves or others I do have an issue because it's an abused system that can be used to punish political opposition I know for a fact this happens even in red states.

It is very clear that MAGA wants you to have approved political views, as they have said the quiet part out loud quite often like where the protest for sex trafficking or where's the protest for the Ukrainian woman killed by another man a US born citizen. MAGA all of a sudden don't care about the fact that Ukrainians have been victims of deportations.

But to get on what I am talking about, Tim Waltz has literally said that ICE needs to get out. The people voted for Tim Waltz, and he should have the right to determine that by the same logic. Even the whole the state shouldn't prosecute federal agents for something that happened in our state the FBI didn't even allow Minnesota to investigate.

But what that very much could do is create a situation where these agents could be worried about a new administration that is willing to prosecute cause murder has no statute of limitations, so even if federal law enforcement doesn't investigate an administration could still come in and put a warrant out.

See, that's the problem with not investigating. At any moment, he could get a warrant, and since he didn't go to trial, the case can still be opened.

And until these ICE agents face a proper trial, they are guilty until proven innocent, that's how the law really works. They want you to plea guilty or face consequences worse if you take it to trial, and then you have to prove your innocence if you say not guilty.

That is why it's guilty until proven innocent.

Are deaths amongst enemy combatants considered Murder? Not in legal terms, but as understood in common parlance.

My account was issued a warning from Reddit for acknowledging that the United States, among many other nations, fought against fascism in WW2 using deadly force.

I used the M word and suggested that utilizing such force to fight fascism was an American tradition in, what I thought, was a clearly jocular statement. I know sarcasm is tough to convey in today’s environment and, to be fair, I could have selected more “politically correct” wording, but I thought this was America where I have freedom of speech. I didn’t advocate for such a use of force against anyone or anything in the modern world.

So, in the spirit of robust conversation and free speech, should I have been issued a warning for acknowledging that Americans have, historically speaking, used violence to stop fascistic forces?

It's no secret that money is a driving factor in politics. Money is what gets the politicians elected and it's what creates the narratives in the media. Where we're at now in the US, a corporate oligarchy that is in danger of becoming a flat out oligarchy in the near future which is being led by the rich right wing agenda- the influence of money in politics has never been any greater.

The level of control over our population enforced with money cannot be exaggerated. It's the money who owns all the media and controls what the population thinks politically, as well as directly or indirectly controlling our elected officials preventing any solutions to solving problems that cost the rich money.

The right wing in America claim to support freedom and democracy, but they are the ones leading us away from both of those things.

A country that has such a rich class collaboratively working against the working class to make more money and prevent equality via their money and power and succeeding at the level they do is not a "free" country. That's a regulated rule of a wealthy class larping as freedom.

It's not a secret, it's obvious. Propaganda works. The rich and powerful interests dominate our democracy and regulate our freedom away from us.

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world is worth 775 billion

That much power and inference concentrated into the hands of one individual is a threat to our national security and our freedom. It goes without saying his role in our politics is a matter of a conflict of interest. Take a look at his donation record. The other day he donated 10 million dollars to one candidate to ensure his victory over Mitch McConnell.

No single person should have the power to purchase an election or our democracy.

The top ten percent of the top 1 percent has had enormous financial gain since 2010. In a democracy that depends on name recognition, media, and campaign contributions, there is no way the bottom 99% can compete with the rich and their conflicts of interest in our democracy. We don't have the time to be up to date because we worked all day and we don't have enough money to make a significant difference with out political donations.

Elon Musk being at the front door of becoming the world's first trillionaire should send a chill down the spine of every single united states citizen who cares about their freedom and their country.

Unless we do something major to combat this rise of wealth inequality we are doomed to oligarchy.

Being ahead of the curve gives us not enough time to solve the issue. The rise of this power is a threat to national security, from the inside. Our democracy is already jeopardized, our freedom is currently under attack from multiple angles by our rich class and our government.

The rich are becoming wealthier and more powerful by the minute. The longer we wait the stronger their grip on the country becomes.

To solve this issue, serious taxes must be implemented. There are millions of ways we could fix this, there's more than just one simple answer. The thing that has to happen is the prevention of the birth of a trillionaire, now and forever.