r/PoliticalOpinions

Was going through some March national polling and the wealth-tax numbers were bigger than I expected for something usually framed as left vs right: 73% said it would be fair to raise wealth taxes on billionaires (most of them "strongly"), and 67% said the same about large corporations. Pair that with only 29% believing Social Security will still exist in 40 years and you get people who are both pro-redistribution and pessimistic the safety net holds.

My read is that "tax the billionaires" has quietly become a consensus position, and the real fight is over implementation, not principle. Where do you land: is that 73% real, or does it collapse the second you get specific about rates, wealth vs income, and enforcement?

I like Bill Clinton‘s personality a lot and he did do some good things for America like balancing the federal budget. But overall he did a lot of long term damage to the country and the Democratic Party because he was so pro corporate.

Dems in 1992 had lost 3 straight presidential elections and by embarrassing margins. Candidates like Mondale and Dukakis had fumbled pretty badly. And the reason was because at the time people still loved Reaganomics (they hadn’t seen the full effect yet). Bill Clinton came along and had a simple solution: turn the Democratic Party platform into a diet, watered down version of Reaganomics, court the Reagan democrats, and boom, Democrats can win elections again. Before 1992, a lot of democrats were fighting the corporate machine and attempting to regulate it. Clinton ended up being the greatest gift to Wall Street when he won in ‘92 and ‘96, especially when he cut Glass/Steagall. Now Reaganomics was and is effectively here to stay thanks to Clinton. Obama tried to get Reaganomics out of the Democratic Party but the consultants didn’t want to alienate Hillary Clinton’s base so he still kept a fair amount of the Clintonian policies. Clinton is the reason the party has become so pro corporate.

We are still a republic. We have choices. I will not be an advocate of government controlling our food. Choice is fundamental to the American spirit.

Yet, it is our responsibility to educate and inform so that choices can be intelligently made.

I think we are at a crossroads where people have been taught to depend on and trust government to solve problems, and have subsequently forfeited doing their own research and even thinking.

I hear people say things like: “I’ve been eating this for years, and I’m still alive.” But they’re discounting that they get colds several times a year, they lack energy, they feel depressed, tired, moody, etc. it doesn’t seem to occur to them that though this has become a norm, it isn’t normal. They could feel and live a lot better.

How long shall we depend on government, yes, even MAHA, to change things?

I believe we can change things dramatically by just refusing to buy and consume things that we know are damaging our health.

I hear people saying RFK is going so slowly in making changes.

Let me propose that he is up against trillions of dollars of profit being made from selling the food-like products we are buying, as though we have no choice. These are our dollars, are they not? So if those of us who care stop spending our dollars on what we’re hoping government will control, wouldn’t that be the way to speed things up?

Do you believe what you buy can make the MAHA difference?

If future presidents—regardless of party—treat the expansion of executive authority during the Trump administration as a constitutional precedent, each successive administration may be incentivized to further consolidate power. Over time, this ratcheting effect could weaken the separation of powers and erode the checks and balances that sustain the United States' constitutional republic.

Rather than relying on changing political norms, Congress and the states should consider constitutional amendments that strengthen institutional accountability. One possible approach is to localize oversight of federal representatives by creating structured, recurring mechanisms through which constituents can formally review, deliberate on, and communicate priorities to their members of Congress. By increasing accountability at the local level and reducing incentives for partisan cronyism, such reforms could help restore public trust and reinforce representative government regardless of which party controls the federal government.

The objective is not to constrain one president or one political party, but to build constitutional safeguards that protect the republic against the concentration of power by any future administration. The title was written by me and the body is an AI re-write.

Why more military spending may be making America less secure

By Van Abbott

America once built dreams; now it builds weapons and calls it security.

Over the past five years, the United States has increased defense and related security spending from roughly $700 billion to nearly $1 trillion annually. Projections suggest total outlays could approach $1.5 trillion by 2027. These figures are so vast they no longer shock. 

Yet the central question remains largely unasked in Washington: why?

Are the threats facing the nation truly so great as to justify ever-expanding commitments? Or has the country come to equate security with spending while overlooking the costs elsewhere? Every bomber produced, every missile tested, carries a tradeoff: a school not built, research deferred, a patient left without care, a community left behind.

During the Cold War, policymakers spoke of peace through strength, but strength was paired with restraint. Today, it risks becoming an end in itself. Instead of prioritizing medical breakthroughs or energy innovation, the nation channels its intellectual capital into refining weapons systems. Each additional trillion directed toward defense reduces the capacity to invest in long-term economic vitality.

The consequences extend beyond budgets. Policies that restrict skilled immigration and limit educational visas discourage global talent from choosing American institutions. In the name of security, the nation risks weakening one of its greatest sources of strength: openness to ideas.

Proponents argue that defense spending supports jobs and economic activity. In a narrow sense, this is true. But much of that activity is tied to weapons production rather than broadly shared prosperity. Communities need investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, not dependence on military contracts. An economy oriented around conflict cannot deliver durable growth. Redirect even a fraction of current spending toward clean energy, transportation, or disease prevention, and the benefits would multiply across generations.

This concern is not new. President Dwight Eisenhower warned that a growing military-industrial structure could distort national priorities. That structure has since expanded into a network of contractors, lobbyists, and political incentives. Budget decisions now reflect not only strategic necessity but also institutional momentum.

At the same time, the assumption that greater military spending guarantees greater security is rarely examined. Many of the nation’s most pressing challenges are domestic: aging infrastructure, rising costs of living, uneven education, and widening inequality. Military power cannot repair bridges, reduce household strain, or improve public health. 

America’s global leadership was built not only on military capability but on innovation, openness, and cooperation. An overreliance on military dominance risks eroding those advantages. By prioritizing military strength over internal renewal, the nation weakens the foundation it seeks to defend.

The United States now faces a defining choice. It can continue expanding the machinery of war, or it can invest in the conditions that make strength possible: education, research, infrastructure, and public health. 

Strength is not measured by the size of arsenals. It is measured by the vitality of a society and the opportunities it creates.

Whenever kids in America are asked what they like most about America, the top answer always seems to be "freedom." Americans talk about freedom constantly. It's what they say defines the country.

If you asked people in other developed countries the same question, “freedom" is not the most common answer. Maybe immigrants from authoritarian countries would say it, but people whose families have lived there for generations would probably talk about something else.

Why?

It’s because most Americans see freedom differently. They don't really see it as a basic human right; they see it as something you earn, something that comes with conditions and qualifications.

That's why the very people who are almost too proud of American freedom are also the same people who say "tough luck" to Americans who can't afford healthcare, are working two jobs and still struggling, are homeless, disabled, or otherwise need help. Those people, the freedom-lovers say, are government freeloaders, and by that token, threats to everyone else's freedom.

To me, that's not a contradiction. It only looks like one if you assume everyone means the same thing by "freedom."

When many Americans talk about “freedom,” they really mean “individualism” (on crack). That’s what they take to be a right, not freedom in the full sense or how other countries understand it. This is why these people claim freedom is the country's highest value, while also believing that some of their fellow citizens don't deserve the full benefits of it.

The conditions for “freedom” in America seem to be: luck, wealth, conforming to neoliberal values, and just “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.” Because the majority of Americans mean “individualism” when they say “freedom,” actual freedom becomes a privilege only some are afforded, and only once the conditions for American hyper-individualism have been met.

These Americans are so proud of their “freedom” because they think America is the only country that has managed to meet the conditions, or secure the right (individualism on crack) necessary for the privilege of “freedom” to truly manifest (Americans “earn” their freedom) - all while other countries take freedom itself to be the right and not “earn-able,” and therefore it is not taken to be a special or defining aspect of any of those countries.

(As for why some people in America get excluded from the right to individualism, like illegal immigrants, immigrants who don’t conform to American standards, etc., it’s because freedom-as-individualism is only a right for True Americans. If you’re not a True American, then you get to enjoy neither freedom itself nor the benefits of individualism; they’re outcasted as the unfree Other, but Americans will say it’s the persons culture that is limiting their actuality to the freedom-as-individualism, and not the culture of America that’s creating the limitations for them.)

I am against Trump deporting U.S. citizens and any human rights violations which have been occurring at the detention centers. I also understand and believe that America should not be hostile to migrants and we do have a rich history of being welcoming.

Times have changed And we are not the same country that we were when Ellis island was around. back then we were still a growing country, we were expanding our west and there were an abundance of jobs and projects to do. nowadays the situation is completely different. we have a job shortage, increasing numbers of hardworking families having to work multiple jobs just to make rent for the month and social services which are beyond capacity. all this despite the fact that we are taxed to death, particularly in blue states. our infrastructure is crumbling, the infrastructure bill a few years ago is making some headway on it but it’s still largely in shambles. our nations debt has been skyrocketing because multiple presidents did fiscally irresponsible things and still are doing so. on top of that we have multiple years worth of backlog in terms of immigration paperwork.

under these circumstances I don’t really see a practical argument against slowing down immigration or possibly limiting it altogether. as in lowering quotas, requiring folks to apply for a visa/asylum status in their home country (like a remain in Mexico situation). dealing with those who are already here is a completely different ballgame but i think we have to be very limited in terms of new immigrants that we take in. I don’t think this is a racist take, I’m still arguing let folks in but we’re in a situation where we just do not have the capacity to fling open the gates like we did many years ago. on top of that we need major asylum reform in America. there needs to be thorough vetting, women and children from areas of active conflict need to be prioritized and there needs to be an ”expiration” of government benefits. Meaning the government will help you for x amount of months while you get acclimated but after that its on you. I also think this system needs to be scaled way back until we can get our debt and infrastructure and social services under control, prioritize areas of the most acute need. not because we don’t want to help folks but we are at a point where it is getting much more difficult and expensive for us to do so. I also think that it is not unreasonable to disallow people from entering the country who will likely be reliant on SNAP benefits, welfare etc. because these systems are barely financially solvent right now. Once we’re able to get those in a good spot absolutely let’s look into that. But nearly every other country has that same restriction and I fail to see why it is racist or xenophobic to suggest that we do that as well. Keep in mind I’m critical of both Trump and Biden’s immigration policies.

Trump Administration Destroying the Future Economy

By Van Abbott

We are dismantling the very engines of talent, innovation, and growth that made America rich, powerful, and respected.

America rose by welcoming talent, rewarding invention, and building world-class universities, laboratories, and companies. That advantage is now being choked off as foreign students, skilled visa holders, and prospective immigrants are treated as liabilities rather than assets. This is not merely misguided policy. It is economic self-harm with long-term strategic consequences.

Recent NSF survey data shows that with the total international science and engineering doctorate holders, long-term retention rates hover near 71 percent after five years and 65 percent after ten. These are innovators, entrepreneurs, researchers, and educators who drive patents, startups, and discovery. Turning them away weakens future growth.

Broader immigration restrictions deepen the damage. The United States is already confronting demographic headwinds as birth rates decline and the population ages. Reducing the inflow of working-age immigrants shrinks the future labor force, tightens labor markets, and constrains economic expansion. It also places growing strain on retirement systems such as Social Security and Medicare, which depend on a strong base of active workers to support retirees. 

At the same time, tariffs compound the problem. They act as taxes on the materials and components American industry relies on, raising costs throughout the production chain. Manufacturers pay more for inputs, equipment, and logistics, leaving U.S. goods less competitive at home and abroad. Rather than strengthening industry, tariffs weaken its ability to compete.

Energy policy reflects a similar misalignment with global reality.

Clean energy is rapidly becoming the lowest-cost source of power across much of the world. Affordable energy is the foundation of industrial competitiveness, and nations that secure it gain a decisive advantage. Yet the United States is stepping back.

Nowhere is this more evident than in transportation. The global shift to electrification is advancing across passenger vehicles, heavy trucks, and emerging aviation technologies. Under the previous administration, electric medium- and heavy-duty truck deployments had scaled to tens of thousands across commercial fleets nationwide, establishing that the transition is real. China, Europe, and other competitors are committing heavily to batteries, charging networks, and advanced propulsion. While the United States hesitates, it risks surrendering leadership in the technologies that will define logistics, manufacturing, and trade for the next generation.

This is not environmental policy. It is industrial strategy. Nations that lead in efficient, low-cost transportation systems gain durable advantages across supply chains, exports, and manufacturing capacity. Falling behind in electrification and automation does not preserve what exists. It forfeits the ability to compete in the economy that is coming.

Environmental rollback further undermines national strength. Decades of policy have delivered measurable gains in air and water quality, improving both public health and productivity. Since 1970, particulate pollution has fallen dramatically, contributing to longer life expectancy. Reversing these protections does not eliminate costs; it shifts them into higher health burdens, reduced workforce productivity, and diminished quality of life. A less healthy population is a less competitive one.

Fiscal policy adds another layer of risk. Defense spending has surged to historic levels, with proposed 2027 total security-related expenditures budget at  $1.5 trillion alongside a 2026 deficit hitting $2 trillion. Borrowing at this scale to fund consumption-heavy outlays does little to strengthen long-term economic capacity. 

Investments in research, education, and infrastructure generate compounding returns. Military expenditures largely consume resources without building future productive assets.

Underlying these choices is a broader shift away from the conditions that sustain innovation. Economic leadership depends on open inquiry, independent research, and the free exchange of ideas. When institutions are pressured, expertise sidelined, and dissent discouraged, the result is not efficiency but stagnation. Talent leaves. Investment follows. Competitiveness declines.

The pattern is unmistakable.

Talent is discouraged, immigration is constrained, costs are raised, emerging industries are neglected, public health is compromised, and debt is expanded without corresponding investment in future capacity.

Each decision alone is damaging. Together, they form a coherent retreat from the sources of national strength. America’s success was built on openness, curiosity, and a willingness to invest in the future. 

History is unforgiving to nations that dismantle their own engines of strength. 

A contracting labor force, diminished innovation, and mounting fiscal strain do not operate in isolation; they compound, accelerating decline. Stay this course, and the United States will not merely fall behind. It will relinquish its role as a standard-setter and accept the far costlier fate of following in a world it once led.

Far Left, Liberals, Centrists, Moderate Conservatives, Far Right...I hate all of them.

Just about every far-right policy is based in discrimination and cruelty, moderate conservatives (IMO the rarest of the five broader categories nowadays) are generally fine as individuals, but happily go along with whatever evil the far right is cooking up, centrists (from my experience) are either people completely checked out of politics who base all their opinions on vibes, or moderate Republicans who just don't want to admit it, Liberals are feckless, useless, eager to throw disadvantageous minority groups under the bus (and in the case of the politicians, bloodthirsty Zionists), and Leftists are somehow even dumber than the far right, allergic to the idea of wielding power, blatantly overrun with anti-Semitism, and regularly push the most unpopular ideas which just draw more hate towards the groups they aim to advocate for.

I was raised by far-right Republicans, and my minority statuses and general empathy eventually led me to the far left. For a while now, I've been politically homeless, though, and I'm starting to think the Average American may have the right idea; I should just stop caring entirely.

GOP please quit wasting our money. Trump wants an arch, he wants to put his face up on Mount Rushmore and wants to tear up the trees to put in a trump golf course, a ballroom that none of us will ever see inside.

You Republicans how can you agree to all this greed. You aren't getting anything out of it. It waste money that could be going to help farmers, help those that have experienced a natural disaster.

Are you guys really ok with the president and his family making billions, while regular Americans are struggling to basic necessities.

Trump is destroying our America as we know it and bragging about his corruption and no one is stopping it.

He is going after people who talk about his corruption and feels its ok if people kill democratic congressmen, but heaven forbid we say anything about republicans.

We need to stop this corruption and put Trump and his family in jail, they are stealing from us the people of America.

Don't forget trump says affordability is a yawn and he doesn't care.

We can stop this, but only if we vote out all these corrupt GOP members in congress and put the whole executive branch and all the trump family in jail.

I am a Gen Z biracial male, and one of the things earlier on that attracted me to the republican party was its focus on merit, colorblind meritocracy, and individual achievement. In the last few years, I am not sure if this is still the case.

The "Great Replacement Theory," once dismissed as a fringe conspiracy, now gets discussed openly in conservative spaces. I've also seen more people embracing so called "race science" or "race realism", presenting them as if they're established science. Instead of emphasizing what individuals can accomplish regardless of background, the conversation increasingly seems to focus on supposed immutable characteristics and group differences.

That shift has made me uncomfortable. I didn't gravitate toward the right because I believed race should define people. I was drawn to the idea that character and merit mattered more than race. Seeing some younger Republicans move toward racial essentialism has made me question whether this is still the movement for me.

This makes me really sad, because although I lean more moderate, I am still pretty conservative.

I'm not trying to attack anyone when I ask this. I'm not trying to demean anyone or insult anyone, but I had a thought.

Many will claim that pride is a sin. Especially during the month of June. To those who believe this way, let me ask you something, just to give you a thought. LGBTQ pride is personal pride into one's self for not being afraid of being who they are, for not wanting to hide despite the horrible things that have been done to those who identify as LGBTQ, or those who feel the government are trying to take their rights away every day, and despite that are not afraid of who they are. By your definition, this is sinful.

Would it not also be sinful to personally be proud to be an American? Or to be proud of your government? Or your right to have firearms despite the increasing prevalence of gun violence? Just like it's sinful for the LGBTQ community to be personally prideful for who they are, would it be sinful to be personally prideful for your country, the people in power, or your guns?

Is it sinful to show pride for your children when they do good in school, or when they do something that you would do?

Aren't all of these personal expressions of pride?

Again, I'm not trying to attack, demean, or shame anyone. This is a genuine question. How is being personally prideful for one thing (that not every interpretation of the Bible says is a sin, by the way) any different than the things you express pride in? Why aren't those considered sinful if they are still an expression of personal pride?

EDIT: I also want to clarify that I am not speaking against people's faith. Theres a difference between spreading your faith and using your faith to justify your hatred for a group of people

The fact that he willfully doesn’t understand this, is what makes it so sad as Obama’s mother wasn’t an immigrant and Trump’s mother was. It speaks to his inadequacy and sense of worthlessness when compared and confronted with someone who’s more American than he will ever be no matter how much credit he takes for anything that has been “accomplished” in his administration. He reaps when he should sow and now the entire country is barren of all its former potential as a coat of many nations, tribes, and peoples. His administration has done nothing but line their pockets and keep their “friends” around them while removing those that kept America from disintegration and getting close with those who only want to see the entire world burn and salted for their own benefit. There is no path forward into a bright future with exploration and development, just one that will line you up against a wall the moment your “use” has come to an end. It isn’t just America that will see this wall at the end but so many others blinded to reality about the puppet masters and shadowed manipulators moving pieces in the dark. It will end up being a last flash and a silence so deafening that nothing can be heard again.

I would want a discussion but what else is there to discuss we all march blindly into the furnace owned by our “betters”.

I’m not talking about our leaders. There’s been much worse, maybe even here. I’m talking about how the median Americans today, taking the average of 340 million people, are worse than any other rank-and-file population in the history of the world. There’s a few reasons why, but the big reason is that historically, most evil things are done either due to general ignorance (social or scientific) or in compliance with evil leaders out of fear.

In many cases, actions taken by our leaders today are actually compromises. Despite an infinite amount of information and a prolonged movement of pointing out all the mistakes we’ve historically made, a mass of the country is actively encouraging worse. While actions taken to this point are far from the worst ever (even in America), I truly believe that the average American today would be capable of and willing to accept much worse than any prior collective national population in history. Put simply: If today’s Americans lived in the time and context of Nazi Germany, Jews would be extinct. 

There’s an important point that can potentially make America in the immediate future way worse than 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, or even any comparable authoritarian regime. The first time around, the world completely lacked equality, and most racism and discrimination was born out of genuine ignorance. Now, for the first time in history that I can find, people who grew up with basic equality have turned against it, and are attempting to purposely reject it at the ballot box. All previous Civil Rights movements have been about appealing to ignorant people to accept something they may not understand. Future Civil Rights movements will be about appealing to people who fully understand the implications of various types of equality, and are prepared to reject them. Not only can I not find an instance of where that was ever successful, I can’t find an instance where it’s been necessary, because no populace has ever purposely regressed to the extent that America has. There is a long held theory that social progress occurs because people in the anti-progress camp will switch to progress, while those in the progress camp almost never switch back. America in 2026 has obliterated this theory.

A large chunk of Americans would rather actively support illiberalism than accept a temporary government they ideologically disagree with. They speak highly of Francoist Spain and Pinochet’s Chile, ignoring the fact that neither exists anymore. They look fondly on Russia and Hungary, ignoring how much better off we are than both of them in pretty much all categories. America was the world’s lone superpower for 30 years and the richest country in history, yet people want to blow up the entire thing out of boredom and paranoia. If there was a national referendum to sunset democracy, I’m not sure if it would fail.

And speaking of paranoia: in what other country would a large portion of the population support making it less convenient for themselves to register to vote for a problem that’s basically negligible? In what other country would voters electorally punish those who stand up against anti-democratic behavior, as happened in Indiana? There’s of course been numerous attempts at various voter suppression methods, but I think this is the first time it’s happened at the behest of the wider electorate itself.

Let’s be real: a black guy was elected President, Gay people got to marry, Trans people simply were recognized as existing, and a podcaster was killed, and for these events that were generally inconsequential to most (myself included), over half of America snapped. And you know that if the Kirk killer gets anything less than the death penalty, he will in some way be victim of the first publicly endorsed lynching in almost 100 years.

In the Civil War, the North fought to free an entire race of people from enslavement, while the South sought to protect the economic interests of half the country. A lot was at stake. Now, there’s people who think it’s worth taking up arms over the abortion of children they’ll never meet, or people using the wrong bathroom, which they will probably never encounter. I can’t find a single dumber reason a country has ever collapsed on itself.

And that’s why I have no faith in the future of America: if everyone was removed from our government and we started from scratch, we would end up with something exponentially worse than what we have now.

Fascists and authoritarian movements typically distrust highly educated citizens because education fosters critical thinking, intellectual independence, and pluralistic values. These qualities directly threaten the core pillars of fascist control, leading to several specific points of conflict:

• Critical Thinking vs. Indoctrination: Fascism relies on short-circuiting logic in favor of emotional manipulation, anger, and allegiance to a single strongman. Critical thinking equips individuals to recognize propaganda, spot logical fallacies, and resist blind obedience.
• Mythologizing the Past: Fascist movements rely heavily on rewriting history to create a myth of a perfect, dominant past (e.g., lionizing a specific religion or dominant group). Educated populations, particularly historians and sociologists, challenge these myths with facts and objective analysis.
• Resistance to Scapegoating: Authoritarianism often sustains itself by uniting a dominant group against a minority or marginalized scapegoat. Higher education broadly promotes pluralism, diversity, and empathy, making students and scholars highly resistant to dehumanizing specific groups

America First arrived at the FBI in a German luxury SUV.

By Van Abbott

For nearly a decade, Donald Trump and his allies have wrapped themselves in the language of patriotism, promising to put American workers, American companies, and American products ahead of foreign competitors.

It is the central marketing slogan of the movement. Yet when the FBI recently replaced the armored Chevrolet Suburbans used for Director Kash Patel's travel, it selected BMW X5 Protection vehicles from a German manufacturer.

The bureau insists the decision was practical. Officials argue the BMWs cost less and attract less attention on the road. Those explanations sound reasonable until they are examined more closely.

The Chevrolet Suburban has long been the workhorse of government security fleets. It has been built in America for decades, supported by American workers. Security personnel know it. Maintenance crews understand it. Supply chains support it.

The BMW may be an impressive vehicle, but it fails the most basic America First test.

A government genuinely committed to an America First agenda would need compelling evidence before replacing an established American security platform with a foreign luxury brand, even one assembled in the United States. No such evidence has been presented publicly.

Instead, taxpayers are asked to accept a conclusion without seeing the analysis behind it.

That matters because the economics are far from obvious. The BMW's purchase price is only one part of the equation. Specialized armor, imported components, proprietary systems, and highly trained technicians all contribute to long-term ownership costs. Any serious comparison should measure acquisition costs, maintenance costs, and lifecycle costs. Without that analysis, claims of savings amount to little more than assertions.

The bureau's rationale raises another question. If the Suburban remains the standard vehicle for countless federal, state, and local security operations, why is it suddenly inadequate for the FBI director?

The answer may have less to do with necessity than preference.

That possibility becomes harder to dismiss when viewed alongside other questions surrounding Patel's use of government resources. Reports regarding FBI aircraft used for personal travel have already raised concerns about whether taxpayer-funded assets are being treated as necessities or conveniences. Whether those concerns ultimately prove significant is almost beside the point. They contribute to a growing perception that the rules governing public resources are becoming increasingly flexible for those at the top.

Against that backdrop, the BMW decision takes on added significance. What might otherwise appear to be a routine procurement choice begins to look like part of a broader pattern in which convenience and preference receive the benefit of the doubt.

At a moment when political leaders regularly urge Americans to buy domestic products and support American industry, one of the government's most visible officials is riding in a German luxury vehicle while an American alternative remains readily available.

That distinction matters because this debate is not really about automobiles. It is about credibility. Political slogans matter only when they constrain behavior. Anyone can proclaim support for American workers at a rally. The real test comes when decisions involve money, convenience, and personal preference.

This decision failed that test.

The contradiction is impossible to ignore. The same political movement that lectures Americans about patriotism, domestic manufacturing, and economic nationalism selected a foreign luxury vehicle when an American alternative was readily available. It asks citizens to buy American, build American, and believe in American industry. Then it quietly makes an exception for itself.

The pattern is familiar. Grand promises fill speeches. Patriotic slogans dominate campaign ads. Flags wave. Crowds cheer. Then governing begins, and absolutes become exceptions.

Words are easy. Choices are revealing.

That is why the BMW story resonates far beyond a small fleet of armored vehicles. It offers a glimpse into the widening gap between political branding and actual governing. The issue is not whether BMW makes a quality vehicle. The issue is whether leaders believe their own message when it becomes inconvenient. Think China made MAGA red hats.

If America First truly means putting American workers and American industry first, then the Suburban should have been the default choice absent compelling evidence to the contrary. If such evidence exists, the FBI should release it. If it does not, Americans are entitled to conclude that the slogan applies to everyone except the people waving the flag.

America First arrived at the FBI in a German luxury SUV, and that single choice tells a larger story. When slogans collide with convenience, convenience wins. When patriotism becomes performance, America First becomes America Last.

Environmentalists called rainforests the lungs of the Earth. I don’t know what’s more ridiculous, that kind of phytoplankton erasure or comparing a biome valued for producing oxygen to an organ known to aid in consuming it.

Environmentalists took breeds of rats known for growing tumors on their own, and pretended GMOs gave them cancer.

Environmentalists took tsunami height maps and pretended they were radiation maps. (Now, I’m as sceptical as anyone else of humanity’s capacity to competently tame the atom, but you can’t in the next breath be incompetent yourself.)

Then, they had the nerve to throw a de facto tantrum in the context of the “we’re the virus” meme, as if thinking their biggest mistake were to be too kind and gentle, instead of their biggest mistake being to be too full of BS. A mistake they repeated again by falling for hoaxes in the context of that very meme.

When you point the finger, there are three pointing back. You want to know who’s at fault for the current heat wave? Look in the mirror.

Citizens have a duty to go out and vote, message their representatives, speak out at public meetings and hearings, and organize with like-minded people to pressure elected officials to do what they want them to do.

The citizenry has actively made the government more and more democratic over the past few decades. It tosses out anybody who does anything unpopular; we're so democratic now, that the people have tight control over what others can do with their properties, if it happens to inconvenience them in some way. The public can very easily stop projects from happening, with enough people shouting down the proposal.

And yet, when it comes time to place the blame where it belongs, for the government doing something that ends up causing net-harm: Everyone wants to act like that the government was supposed to "just be competent" and "just do thd right thing"; as if the government wasn't explicitly stripped of its ability to act independently, because people decided that it should only do what is popular.

---

Way too often, whenever it is pointed out the duties and responsibilities that every citizen has in our democracy to get the government to do stuff, people will whine about how, "I (they) shouldn't have to do all of that! I don't have time for that!". Half the population don't vote in state and federal elections; that skyrockets to 80% for local elections. An even smaller percentage of people commit to any of their other duties and responsibilities. It's always just demands for the government to "just be competent" with zero public input at all. But when it does something unpopular: All of the sudden they "should be listening to the people".

---

I think it's time for us to have a very serious talk about what we actually want the government to look like.

Do we want a government that is proactive and data/evidence driven? Do we want a democracy to where the most anyone has to get involved is voting for a party/head of government/representative? Or do we want a government that just does what the public wants; irrespective of how harmful it may be?

Because this cycle of demanding more democracy, and then rejecting the duties and responsibilities that come with more democracy when it comes time to point the finger at who put (and keeps putting) corrupt and incompetent people into office, is not sustainable. We seriously need to figure out how much we want the government to focus on the collective good, vs individual interests; what is popular, vs what is right.

1. It's possible to be racist towards white people. Google defines racism as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. It involves actions, attitudes, or institutional structures that oppress or limit the rights of individuals and groups based on their race or ethnic background. It doesnt say "only affects everyone other than white people". It's discrimination based on skin color. Slavery shouldn't be an excuse to treat people who never owned slaves like shit, when you, your mom, grandma, maybe even great grandma were never slaves.

2. Just because I personally don't agree with transgender, nonbinary, etc, doesnt make me homophobic or a bigot. I personally believe that you were born male or female at birth and therefore you are male or female. Intersex makes up only 0.018% to 1.7% percent of the world population. And even then you're assigned a gender based on the most prominent physical features or medical testing. Anyways, if you want to live your life how you want to, you have that right. Doesnt mean I have to accept it, nor does me personally accepting it change you're life or ruin it.

3. Misandry exists. The usual retort is "patriarchy, all men, misogyny". Yes. Misogyny exists too. Not saying it doesn't. Because one can't exist without there being the other. Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or deep-seated prejudice against women. Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or deep-seated prejudice against men. Nowadays, there's still a bunch of misogyny across the world, especially in the Middle East where women are actively being oppressed. But we've also seen a boom in misandry. I mean, you can scroll on TikTok for an hour and see a bunch of videos about "I hate men", "we dont need men", "men are useless". Women need men. Men need women. Both need each other equally.

4. There isnt any reason the US shouldn't have as secure of a border as other countries do. People act like you're insane for even suggesting that we should only have legal immigration. Also, if you say you're leaving your home country to come to the US for a better life, but then still pledge allegiance to that other country, why not go back? You spout how you want it to be more like your home country (which you fled) so go back. No one's stopping you.

5. I can dislike artists that are popular without being "edgy" or "pathetic" or "mean". Like Taylor Swift. She's way to overhyped. Her music isnt good (in my opinion). Her lyrics suck: "Did you girlboss too close to the sun?" And honestly, I wouldn't mind her that much. If it wasn't for her cult. Most (not all) but most Swifties are like a cult. Act like they personally know her. Defend her music like its sacred when its mediocre at best. It's very parasocial.