https://thecradle.co/articles/us-popular-support-for-israel-...
About 10% of Americans identify as evangelical protestants
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/how-many-evangelicals-...
0 - https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/83/S1/280/5520...
Ronald Reagan was a trash goblin who destroyed our economy to enrich the wealthy.
So was Bill Clinton.
George Bush was a war criminal who indiscriminately bombed brown people.
So was Obama.
Hillary Clinton was a huckster con artist who worked for her wealthy friends.
So is Trump.
Your dichotomy is a trap. There are no good guys because the system itself is rigged in favor of militaristic capitalist oligarchs, which is the actual problem.
It's like people can no longer imagine living under a totalitarian state... where you don't even get a vote, and if you don't like what's happening and you say something about it, you're shot. That's literally the way things were done before democracies and republics existed... it's still the way things are done in places like North Korea.
The 'third parties' argument is a painful joke, statistically speaking [0 1 2]. You can make all sorts of arguments as to why but the fact is that without support from D or R you can go get fucked.
This raises the question - are there only two opinions? With the obvious answer - of course not. We could say 'well, maybe people fall generally into two camps', but that doesn't really pass muster either, does it? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I agree with all of them on some things. This is evidenced by the amount of voters registered third party despite the abysmal election numbers [3].
So what's going on here? Well, people are being strategic. We're on first-past-the-post in most places. This means you're typically voting not for what you want but for what you don't want. That is not a system of representation, it's a sports game where the prize is some cosmetic social program changes and not much else.
Mamdani is an excellent example of what this system does to third party candidates. As soon as there's a legitimate threat to the entrenched parties, fundraising spikes massively for the opposition [4].
Not getting a vote under this system wouldn't be more totalitarian, it would be more honest.
0 -https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown
1 - https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorM...
2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_me...
3 - https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-a...
4 - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/nyregion/mamdani-adams-do...
Republic and democracy mean the same damn thing, rule by the people as opposed to rule by a monarch.
This is oligarchy. The 'democratic' process is a smokescreen, and an increasingly thin one.
Look up 'liquid democracy'. It's the best example of what an actual democracy might look like if we did it. We won't, but I also enjoy Blade Runner and Star Trek, so there's no harm in fiction.
That's just a bonus feature
The tariffs serve 2 purposes:
1. They can replace income taxes and protect the wealthy (per their reasoning)
2. They are a tool for power over other countries and a mechanism to compel them to pay personal tribute to The King of America™
I would love to be proven wrong because I'm hating this timeline.Get power => cause market instability, make trades and bets on volatility (or have your friends do it) => offshore your gains
This means that if you wanted to use the law as a political cudgel without being accused of thought-policing, you could outlaw psychedelics and be confident that the blast zone would exclude the politically faithful while locking up loads of political undesirables; like hippies, panthers, etc.
Of course, these days you have right-wing podcasters discussing DMT with billionaire CEOs, so it's a little trickier. Thus the tentative steps toward legalization.
Moustache-twirler A: We've identified these metrics that correlate with increased shareholder value
Moustache-twirler B: But what do those metrics say about user privacy?
(both laugh. This is very funny)
MT A: no but really, fire any PMs that don't make these go up and let the survivors figure out why
MT B: sounds great. See you at golf this weekend
(some time later, in a less fancy conference room)
Engineer: This new feature is great, but could be construed as an invasion of privacy. Can we make it opt-in?
PM (panicking): Oh good heavens, no! Also send the opt-out button to the UX team, that way it doesn't come down on us.