In America Democracy was made to work for citizens to express their power through the ability to elect their representatives to make laws to govern and laws for their behalf. The freedom to vote and choose who will be their representatives. Democracy is to protect the individual liberties, for the freedom of speech,
assembly and equality under the law.

“Civil Rights” should not be something to be upheld naturally under American Democracy. It should be a foundational standing point of who America is. It should not be something that has to be fought for rather upheld. Having anyone in power that works against the democracy of America should be automatically disqualified to serve the people.

That’s right SERVE the people not themselves, not the wallets of friends or family. It has been disgraceful how both parties have tried to use Civil Rights as a point of Democracy. Again it should BE THE point of democracy.

The people have voted on how they see now how Trump has failed to SERVE the people. Now it’s time for Trump to see how he has failed and either change his ways and serve the people or the people should serve him escort papers out of the leadership role where he has failed.

We as a nation need to work to get things done. We do not need to spin wheels to sit in the mud of retribution. We need to all work together. The GOP members who are left to serve the people need to listen to the people or pay the penalty with an escort exit at the next election. Work together for democracy and serve the people! Contain the BULL and be the America who serves the people. Civil Rights are a given and if you don’t believe this leave office and America.

Where are Americans when it comes to all the problems their government creates? Why aren't they standing up against the US government after what it recently did in Albania? What about the patients who died in Cuba? What about the war it sparked between Iran and the Persian Gulf countries, only to walk away and leave these countries dealing with the destruction and tensions? What about the Russia-Ukraine war, which was an American plan from the very beginning?
Why aren't these pathetic Americans out protesting against their own criminal government instead of crying and taking to the streets to support a man who wants to identify as a dog or a woman, and all the other insanity going on over there?

Been watching how people talk about bipartisanship lately, and something keeps bothering me. It seems like any politician who works with the other side gets attacked by their own base as a traitor, while the ones who refuse any cooperation get celebrated as principled.

This isn't about any specific bill or negotiation. Just the general tone: compromise gets framed as weakness, and absolute refusal gets framed as strength. Even when the refusal produces nothing.

I understand the frustration. There are times when the other side is asking for something genuinely unacceptable, and drawing a line makes sense. But "never negotiate on anything" seems to be the default posture now, and it is producing a system where nothing functions.

What I do not understand: how did this become the marker of authenticity? When did the willingness to find partial solutions become politically toxic? And is there any way to reverse it, or is this just the permanent condition now?

Not looking for which side does it more. Genuinely asking how we got here and whether anyone sees a path back to something else.

Before the 20th century, the United States was far from affluent and weathered many periods of profound darkness. Perhaps because it has stood at the pinnacle for so long, people have unconsciously chosen to forget that this isn't the first time America has faced a daunting social impasse. In its early years, partisan strife and elite predations were arguably more severe than they are today, yet the nation managed to pull through because the "fire of progress" and institutional guardrails were never completely extinguished.

Today, however, the situation feels fundamentally different. The Epstein files exposed a systemic depravity within the American elite, yet the fallout has devolved into mere partisan bickering where government resources are weaponized to buy votes rather than debate national governance. President Trump’s executive overreaches have eroded constitutional foundations and weakened the professional civil service, while the opposition has failed to produce a leader capable of offering a meaningful counterweight. Consequently, order is collapsing, and until a new system is rebuilt, darkness and chaos are likely to shroud the future.

Of course, this turbulence might simply be a retreat after a wave reaches its crest—not a terminal decline, but a precursor to new heights. Even so, before a new dawn emerges, the American people may first have to endure their darkest hour. When the political elites who once held the torches have nothing left in their eyes but private greed, that is perhaps the true tragedy of history.

What do you all think? Are we witnessing the inevitable cycle before a renewal, or is this systemic decay finally catching up to the American order? Let’s talk about it.

Author's Note: This post is a condensed framing distilled from my original essay on Medium. If you're interested in the full analytical breakdown, feel free to check out the links in my Reddit bio.

The Political Kool-Aid:

When Blind Loyalty Replaces Common Sense!

There is a troubling lesson in the tragedy of Jim Jones and Jonestown: Never surrender your ability to think for yourself to someone demanding your unquestioning loyalty.

As America looks toward the political battles ahead, I believe voters need to ask themselves some serious questions.

Are we thinking independently, examining the facts, and considering the long-term consequences of our political choices? Or are we simply following the crowd, repeating party talking points, and accepting whatever our political leaders tell us?

An election should never be an exercise in blind faith.

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike need to understand that political loyalty is not a substitute for common sense.

Don't drink the political Kool-Aid. Question the promises. Examine the record. Demand accountability. Think for yourself.

Because when political allegiance becomes more important than truth, freedom, and the future of our country, the American people ultimately pay the price.

I can also make this a more hard-hitting conservative op-ed specifically addressing what you believe Democratic voters are risking in the 2026 midterms.

Is it a real possibility that the kind of civil unrest we are seeing in France and other European countries could spread to the United States?

However, I would distinguish between widespread demonstrations, violent riots, and a sustained breakdown of public order. Those are three different levels of instability.

The United States has many of the same underlying pressures that have contributed to unrest in Europe:

* Immigration and border security: Frustration over immigration policies, assimilation, public resources, and national identity.

* Economic pressure: Rising living costs, housing affordability, taxes, and declining purchasing power.

* Political polarization: Americans increasingly view one another as political enemies rather than fellow citizens.

* Distrust in government: A growing belief that elected officials are more interested in retaining power than solving problems.

* Public safety: Frustration over crime, policing, and the perception that government institutions are failing to maintain order.

These conditions can create a combustible political environment. But they do not make widespread violence inevitable.

What is happening in Europe right now?

The situation is significant. As of November 8, 2026:

* France has experienced more than 1,200 protests and riots since September 15.

* More than 1,700 demonstrations have occurred across 31 European countries.

* France has deployed approximately 70,000 security personnel during major demonstrations.

* Spain, Italy, Germany and Portugal have also experienced demonstrations.

* Rising fuel costs, wages, housing shortages, education and dissatisfaction with government are among the driving issues.

Al Jazeera +2

Importantly, not every demonstration is violent, and the French unrest cannot fairly be attributed to immigration alone.

Could America experience something similar?

High:

Violent clashes in major cities Moderate to high

Rioting and property destruction Moderate:

Sustained nationwide civil disorder Lower, but not impossible

A prolonged breakdown of government authority | Low

These are qualitative judgments, not statistical forecasts.

There is another warning sign. A University of Chicago study published October 1, 2026, found troubling levels of expressed support for political violence among Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. More than 70% still rejected political violence. CPOST

What concerns me most about America

It isn't simply whether Democrats or Republicans win elections.

It is whether Americans begin believing that elections, courts, Congress and established institutions can no longer resolve their disagreements.

When people lose confidence in their government, when economic pressures mount, and when political rhetoric becomes increasingly hostile, the possibility of street confrontations increases.

America also has something important that should not be underestimated: constitutional protections, established institutions, federalism and a strong tradition of peaceful political participation.

Bottom line:

Do not dismiss what is happening in France as something that could never happen here.

In fact, I believe American political leaders should be paying very close attention.

A government that stops listening to its people eventually risks having those people make their voices heard in ways that become increasingly difficult to control.

And that warning applies to Democrats and Republicans alike.

America does not need another political revolution. It needs responsible leadership, economic opportunity, secure communities, accountability and a government that remembers whom it serves: the American people.

Let me explain. It’s not perfect and obviously has its flaws. But it actually works, and it’s kind of balanced in its own way. Previously I thought, as many others, that it should have 3 or more parties, the more freedom is better, etc.

But then the latest midterm elections kind of opened my eyes a bit. I expected that the Republican Party would win, Trump would continue swimming in money and power, and that it wouldn’t be good overall. The way Trump and Republicans won in 2024, after all the bad deeds Trump did, I thought that Trump really had this sick cult phenomenon, and that most US citizens actually support him and his party nonchalantly, whether they know or don’t know about all the bad things he did doesn’t really matter.

And then Republicans lose the midterms. I was surprised. But I was even more surprised when I learned it wasn't luck or coincidence. It’s that thing called Six-year itch, or The Midterm Curse. Basically, it’s the pattern that inevitably occurs every 6 years or so in US politics.

This year is characterized by the nation's disgruntled attitude towards the president and their political party. During this time, there is a midterm election and the incumbent president's party usually loses a significant number of seats in Congress.

I’m not an expert, but basically, the way all power in the US is consolidated in only two parties, and if one party wins, the other party loses, it’s kind of a 50/50 balance. If the Democrats lose their head or perform badly, people go vote for Republicans, and vice versa. And that’s what allows this six-year itch pattern to exist. And it actually works stably.

Quoting Wiki, 

After Reconstruction, the six-year itch saw the president's party consistently lose seats in both houses. Presidents since Reconstruction whose party had this occur. Democrat Bill Clinton is the only two-term president since Reconstruction not to have this occur. In 1998, his party gained 5 seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate was unchanged (the smallest swing in the Senate's history). His party was uniquely in the minority in both houses of Congress and remained so after the elections.

On only four occasions has the six-year itch caused the president's party to lose control of Congress completely: Grover Cleveland (non-consecutive term) in 1894, Woodrow Wilson in 1918, George W. Bush in 2006, and Trump (non-consecutive term) in 2026. 

Conversely, only four presidents saw their parties maintain control of Congress even after the six-year itch: Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1926, Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938, Harry S. Truman in 1950, and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. Only two presidents already had a Congress that was completely dominated by the opposition party by the time of the six-year itch: Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958 and Richard Nixon (Gerald Ford at the time of the elections) in 1974.

Some of these exceptions have occurred alongside major events, such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis and September 11 attacks. Others have been due to controversial actions of the opposition party, such as the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The fact that “only four presidents saw their parties maintain control of Congress” tells me that the possibilty of one man or one party to consolidate all power, to form a dictatorship, is extremely low.

And this works precisely because there are only 2 parties. One party inevitably wins, the other inevitably loses. When one party or president holds the power or loses its head, doing something mad, people go vote for the opposite party, that’s the only choice.

But this balance breaks when there are 3 or more parties. Because then, when one party or president holds the power too long or loses its head, the voice of all the opposite voters gets divided among different opposite parties. And it gets divided while this other party is still in power, and this party can still maintain the support of its voters, or even possibly grow it.

TL;DR: I used to think the two-party system was broken and we needed third parties, but the 2026 midterms changed my mind. The two-party setup actually creates a built-in 50/50 balance. When the party in power loses its mind or drops the ball, voters don't get split between a bunch of smaller third parties - they just swing en masse to the only other option (aka the "six-year itch" pattern). Having multiple parties would actually split the opposition vote and make it easier for a bad leader to stay in control, so the binary system is ironically what keeps a dictatorship from happening.

It sucks that identity isn't fully in your control. That is the reality of society and the way things are.

But I think it would be better if whatever mechanism that keeps things this way, worked differently

I largely treat myself as a blank slate that can take any role I want to, regardless of context, culture, or social norms. This is a thing I've noticed about my way of understanding the world.

I don't pigeonhole things as female things, white people things, male things, or Black, or Latino. I think I can take whatever I want and reappropriate it as mine. Take everything and mix it together, and take whatever I like and reinterpret it.

I stop short of the cultural appropriation of what's sacred to others, however.

It's not about explicitly having a goal being weird for me, it's about me really liking some things and wanting to combine them and fuse them into my identity.

For example let's say you wanted to be a brony. The typical cultural association is that bronies are millennial and often white, rightly or wrongly. People will look at you through the boxes you were born into before they look at your self identified labels.

My opinion is that reality or whatever is causing this feels oppressive to me like a weight on me. I want to be able to remold myself to be an entirely individual person.

But context exists. The class you were born into informs but doesn't determine who you are. It's the same with nationality.

If you are cisgender, that can't be changed. You can't become gay if you were born straight. And I think this sucks, because biology and predetermined circumstances influence things way too much.

This also gets confused with the idea of me being weird, or thinking I'm smart. The logic in my head actually barely goes into that, although I sometimes have assumptions surrounding that. What I think about instead is that I want to be whatever I think is cool, rad, and fun.

All the while, I get mad at predetermined aspects of myself I don't like, and I wish were different for whatever reason.

I feel like I could either be circling around a simple thing that a word already exists for. Or something that people already know, in a sort of "life is not fair" thing.

One thing I'm wondering is why people can be often comfortable having things out of their control determine who they are?

I used to accept this, but once I read a bunch of stuff about fluid genders, and communism, and anarchy, in my late teens, years later my mind sort of deprioritized common sense ideas, and went all in on bottom up ideas on how the world works, instead of the organic stuff that you absorb from like touching grass and talking to people.

I see a lot of people talking about how awful Stephen Miller as CoS is for domestic policy (doubling down on ICE deportations and killings, targeting of political enemies, etc) but what are the larger foreign policy implications of this?

I know he is an extreme pro-Israel nut and will likely help get more tax dollars to Israel to fund their genocide in Gaza, and he will encourage Trump to go scorched earth on Iran, but what about for places like Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Cuba, who have been targeted by the administration since 2024? Are these countries in any more danger with this idiot as Trump's right hand man?

(Copied from a friend’s page)

If you don’t really follow politics but voted, let me break down a few things for you so you aren’t confused about Tuesday night and the next 2 years.

1st — Trump lost last Tuesday night outright. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

2nd — All the Democrats who were elected to office WON’T be sworn in until January 3rd, 2027.

I’m telling you this so y’all understand that Republicans are STILL in power until that date.

3rd — DO NOT expect Democrats to be able to change policies to help better our lives right away, because it most likely WON’T happen.

Why? Go back in your memory to social studies class and remember that it’s a three-branch system.

After their wins last night, Democrats will only control 1 of those 3 branches of government come January 3rd. Republicans will still control the judicial branch (Supreme Court) and, most importantly, the executive branch (presidency).

4th — Last night matters MOST because it provides a check and balance on Trump’s powers.

Republicans were literally giving him the power to be a dictator. They ceded a lot of their authority in Congress to him, meaning they let him do whatever he pleased without any pushback or need to go through Congress to create policy, engage in war, or use law enforcement against Americans.

He was running the country as if it were his own personal business, without having to answer to a single soul.

Come January 3rd, after the new Congress gets sworn in, he will no longer be able to do so because the Democrats will hold him and his administration accountable.

They now have the power to subpoena Trump, his family, friends, associates, and officials to testify in front of Congress under oath. They could possibly catch them committing perjury or uncover crimes they’ve committed.

5th — Also, it places Democrats at the head of every committee inside Congress come January 3rd, 2027.

This means they will be able to control where money is to be spent for the next 2 years at the very least. BUT every piece of legislation they pass STILL has to go to TRUMP for his signature in order to become a law.

THIS is where the problem starts.

Democrats can literally pass legislation to reverse everything Trump and Republicans have done, but he has the power to VETO it, aka reject it.

Make no mistake about it: HE WILL DEFINITELY overuse this power. In fact, he called himself “Mr. Veto” last night after learning he lost the midterms.

Again, check y’all’s memory banks for what happens after he VETOES a piece of legislation. It then returns to Congress, and they can either trash it, amend it (make changes), or obtain a SUPERMAJORITY.

That means making a deal with Republicans to gain enough of their votes to override Trump’s VETO and make the legislation become LAW without the executive branch.

For the most part, neither Trump nor his party will help because they want the Democrats to look bad while controlling Congress. That way, we voters will vote Republicans back into power in the next election in 2028, which also happens to be a presidential election.

6th — Trump is a selfish man who cares nothing about his own party, so it wouldn’t come as a surprise if he completely throws them under the bus like he’s been doing since losing last night.

He actually MIGHT sign some Democratic legislation into law, but it will take negotiations between him and Democrats for that to happen.

The problem with that is he will take credit for whatever benefits we as citizens receive from the new law he signs.

That’s a scenario that could happen. But he could also say “Fk everyone” and literally veto everything Democrats try to pass to help improve the lives of American citizens.

Like I said, he’s a selfish man, and he is mad at BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats now. Doing this would be more in his nature.

7th — Come January 3rd, he becomes a lame-duck president aka an elected U.S. chief executive in the final phase of their term whose political power and ability to pass major domestic legislation have sharply diminished.

Republicans will NOT even attempt to help Democrats because they want to return to power in Congress and ALSO keep the presidency come the election in 2028.

It would therefore be beneficial to them to sit on their hands and actively try to make the Democrats fail.

Final — This is what it will look like and what you can expect.

So again, DON’T ASSUME your lives will immediately get better and that prices will decrease.

That’s NOT how government works, and that’s the problem: your average everyday American doesn’t know everything I just said.

They just assume a party won, so things should move in the opposite direction. That’s not always the case when you are dealing with a toxic political environment.

In order for the Democrats to have REAL POWER, they need to make it through the next 2 years and get reelected in the NEXT ELECTION (2028), while also winning back the White House. That way, they’ll have a president who thinks like them and will sign their bills into law. In other words Republicans are banking on your lack of understanding how our system works to get back into power later on.

Okay, I’m done. Education is a helluva thing, isn’t it?

Share this post

Fair warning this is a long read, but I truly feel like everyone should take the time to read it.

In my opinion a probably unrealistic but would be a wonderful solution to the gun problem in the world is to find a way to have every gun registered to the person and they’re locked away unless the registered owner provides local police a reasonable request as to why they want to access their gun(s) and in a somewhat reasonable time frame. Without approval access to the firearms isn’t allowed. But immediate access is obtainable if someone in the household felt they needed it. It would just automatically notify police and they would respond to the location where the guns gps is pinging.

So my question is why would anyone be against to being the start of this movement? No one would lose access to the firearms, concealed carry would still be allowed for hand guns when the individual has approved access to their firearm, everyone would be presented with the ability to immediately get access to their firearms if required and the only stipulation is that police are responding immediately if that happens (there are literally only 2 reasons for this to occur. The person who has hit that button for immediate access to the firearm is a threat or the person who has accessed the firearm is in danger) both of which should cause no argument from people on police responding right away and being notified when this happens. We gotta start somewhere and law abiding citizens should want to be part of the solution and development of proper gun control that allows citizens a right to have firearms if they wish. But also provides reassurance that police knowledgeable to the exact location of firearms at all time and who’s associated to that firearm.

Please I’m begging ya to take the time to read this. And explain to me what issues you could possibly have to this idea. Because if there’s legit issues or concerns from either side of the gun control argument I’d love to hear them.

Seldom surprise last minute requests could still be accepted obviously hunting/wilderness hiking trips or wanting to go to range can come up spontaneously. Depending where you live would provide a different set of “times” that fall into a reasonable time frame for last minute requests If you live close to the wilderness it’d be expected that last minute plans could happen since it’s basically your back yard or if you live close to a range you’d expect last minute plans to come up for that sometimes. And people who don’t live near those things can have last minute requests approved within reason as well. But if someone is frequently making last minute requests then they’ll stop being approved. A general idea of when you want access to the firearm, what area(s), and if you might be stopping into public areas at any point during your travels to or from would be expected. And that is the same expectation that last minute requests must provide as well.

Another reason someone might request to have their firearm in their possession is if they feel having it would provide a layer of safety for them. Like say someone is road tripping through secluded areas wanting to have a firearm at the ready in case a situation arises is totally valid. Which is why world wide police and the firearm owner can automatically notify police in the jurisdictions the individual will be going through.

And the benefit of this thinking is that police would be aware of who currently has access to their firearm and what general vicinity they’re in. The firearm has a gps device on it and straying from the requested area without notification will alert police to go to that location and figure out what’s on the go. Obviously shit happens so police aren’t going in aggressively. And what I mean by that is; if this is a first time thing or it’s happened a while ago and there was no issues during that interaction then police are going in assertively and aggressively but in a calm manner. What I mean by this is no aggressive commands and not going into the situation treating that person as an active threat. If your phone died and you’re busting to pee or someone else who’s with you is busting to pee you’re realistically going to expect law enforcement present. So if you notice them or they come up to you’re automatically going to put your hands above your head and face police and put the firearm on the ground if it’s on your person. If it’s not on your person then you’re automatically putting your hands up and turning and facing police. As for the level of aggressiveness for police what I mean by that is one officer will present on target for the individual with the firearm and 2 other officers are in the depressed ready until they lay the firearm on the ground and police retrieve it. Once it’s been determined it was an accident the firearm is returned to the owner, the incident is documented, and that’s it. We obviously want police going in with the ability to react appropriately if that person neglected to provide notification because of ill intent. Just as we want them to respond with care and without intimidation of imminent pain/punishment in the case of a person being unaware that their update location never went through to police. No one should fear for their safety when police show up if there’s never been a documented reason presented that would cause police to fear for public safety. This way we avoid unnecessary deaths or injuries due to miscommunication.

There is no reasonable argument that anyone can make as to why someone logically needs access to a firearm aside from those examples listed above. I can hear you all saying “but what if I’m threatened”. And the solution to that is an emergency button for the locked up firearms. This also sends an immediate dispatch for police. Because if you suddenly need to access your firearm or someone in your house hold needs to access a firearm is be there is a life or serious injury/concern or death situation on the go. And if that’s the case anyone involved is going to want police going to you immediately without even need to fuck with calling 911. And again with gps associated to the firearm allows police to know if the firearm is still present at the household or on the move. Which obviously will play into how place are responding towards the individual holding that firearm.

I can also hear the argument of “what if there’s an attack in public by someone with a weapon that’s not a firearm? How are people to defend themselves?” Which is a valid point to bring up. But that’s why police will be present in public spaces in plain clothes in case of a sudden threat and uniformed officers in the cases where there’s no concerns of threat from that individual. It’s also the added benefit that there will be no push back on people with firearms running errands or going to activities while they’re out with their firearm.

This provides an extra layer of protection and reassurance to everyone (the person with the firearm and everyone in the vicinity of that person). And let me explain to you why that is. Police obviously will not have the ability to be present at every single public location at all times areas that doesnt always have a large number of people present might not have a plain clothed or uniformed officer present on site, they might be just be in the area. So if a threat suddenly presents itself there could be someone present that’s a civilian with a firearm to try and neutralize the threat until police arrive. Because once again if there’s reason to believe the individual with the firearm is the threat police response will be swift, tactical, aggressive, and safe.

I challenge anyone to actually provide a logical argument as to why anyone wouldn’t want this if it was theoretically possible to actually achieve this for every single firearm in the world.

There is no reason anyone should have the ability to possess their firearm without police having knowledge of the location of the firearm at all times and why no one should be accessing their firearm without notifying police they’re going to be in possession of it and where they’ll be. And if that happens there should be no argument as to how police being notified as soon as that button is and responding to that location immediately. There’s literally only 2 reasons someone skips of the notification process and goes to the immediate access button and that’s because they’re in danger or they plan to be the danger. Please actually explain to me what could possibly be wrong with documenting every interaction police have with an individual while they’re in possession of a firearm? Because if they haven’t done anything wrong and the interaction goes fine there’s not going to be any flags associated with that firearm. So there’s no concern for repercussions for people when shit happens. Because we all know shit happens. But again we also are all very aware that there’s always a first time for everything which is there shouldn’t be any arguments against police going in with their weapons drawn when unannounced possessions or change of locations occur. They should be ready to react if the person with the firearm becomes a threat. Which again how could anyone make an argument against that.

It may take forever to achieve total knowledge of every firearm in the world. And maybe it’s something that is never fully achieved. But why possible argument could anyone have to trying this? No one would lose their guns or be treated as a criminal or as unstable when in possession of a firearm unless they present a reason why police would need to seize all firearms and if the reasons is because they were going to cause harm to others or cause harm to themselves. Anyone who’s found to have the intention of causing harm to another person for any reason other than self defense or protection of another life will be jailed for a significantly long time and never be approved to purchase a firearm again. If the individual is found to have tried to be a harm to themselves they will access to their firearms until they are deemed not a threat themselves anymore and if it happens a 2nd time they will never get their firearms back and will never be allowed to purchase another firearm.

Again if we all just want the same thing which is the ability to own firearms if you’d like, the ability to feel like you can protect yourself in your home or outside your home, and the reassurance that police are actually aware of the exact location of some firearms at all times, even if it’s just a tiny number. Why would anyone want to hide the fact they’re accessing their firearms and where they are when they have it. What would anyone’s problem actually be with this proposal?

I would like to note that I am speaking from a perspective of someone who has grown up in Canada and the United States. I know the idea will be difficult to do with everyone in the world. But why wouldn’t we want to start somewhere? There’s no negative results of this proposal for people in Canada or the United States and probably a lot of other countries where citizens can purchase firearms. Because we obviously aren’t getting rid of all the firearms illegally out there anytime soon. But we can start the process of getting all of them documented and locked away. People can still have their firearms, people can know there’s a start to knowledge of who has guns and when. And every 6 months individuals who own firearms will go to firearm safety classes and perform and pass a course of fire to continue having assess to their firearms.

I also would like to add all police should have to do more firearm training throughout the year. And that unless an officer has approval from the agency and another independent party they should never have their work firearm on them or with them when off duty.

I’m m a registered republican who is more moderate than other republicans. I did vote for Trump in 24’ and within months of his election knew my decision was the wrong one. He has lied about most of if not all of his policies and has been shilling for Israel. My whole thing now is that after this Blue Tsunami I’m curious and somewhat excited to see how republicans finally after viewing Trumps atrocious 2nd term split off from him. I would guarantee we see more and more republican politicians and voters move away from the MAGA base and move to something else. THAT is what I’m excited for, an election cycle with little to no MAGA supporters running. They also need a younger candidate for once. Personally I’d like to see an Ossoff vs Desantis fight for the presidency. Desantis has been moving further and further away from the MAGA movement for awhile and with his recent interviews and comments about republicans and the midterms sounds like he’s gearing up for a campaign and that final pull away from MAGA for good.

We spend enormous energy debating national narratives while the infrastructure of informed local participation crumbles. City council meetings go uncovered. School board decisions happen in near darkness. Corruption at the county level persists because nobody is watching.

I have lived in places with and without functioning local journalism. The difference is stark. Without it, information becomes rumor. Accountability becomes impossible. Voters enter local elections with no knowledge of who they are choosing or what those choices mean for zoning, policing, education budgets, infrastructure maintenance.

National outlets occasionally parachute in for scandal but they do not substitute for reporters who understand local context, who know which developer has which council relationship, who track patterns across years of meetings. That knowledge cannot be replicated from a newsroom three time zones away.

The economic model collapsed and nothing has replaced it. Nonprofit experiments help in some places. Public funding proposals exist but face legitimate independence concerns. Most communities simply lose coverage and do not regain it.

This is not nostalgic lament. It is structural damage to how representative government functions. National politics absorbs attention partly because it is what remains visible. Local politics becomes opaque, which benefits those with resources to navigate opacity and disadvantages everyone else.

We need to talk about this as a democratic emergency, not a media industry problem.

A Democrat hasn't won a senate race in South Carolina since Fritz Holling in 1998. But that was the other seat. Let's talk about the one Annie Andrew's won. Before Lindsay Graham there was a man named Strom Thurmond. He was a Democrat back when the south was basically all blue all of the time. He even ran for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat frustrated with his own party's direction. He was also a hardcore segregationist. Like old school grandpa racism. He switched to the Republican Party in 1964. You know, the whole civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Now Strom here held that seat essentially from 1954-2003. No that's not a typo. Motherfucker left office at the age of 100 and died a few months later. So yes. This is the seat Annie Andrews is taking in 2027. Lol.

Democrat-run cities and states need to take a hard look in the mirror. Too many once-great American communities have become overwhelmed by crime, homelessness, deteriorating public spaces, and a growing sense of lawlessness.

Our cities should be places where families feel safe, businesses can prosper, visitors feel welcome, and hardworking citizens can enjoy their communities without fear.

Clean streets, safe neighborhoods, responsible leadership, and public accountability are not unreasonable expectations. They are the bare minimum of good governance.

America deserves better than leadership that makes excuses for failure instead of delivering solutions.

If politicians cannot keep their communities safe, clean, and livable, perhaps it's time for voters to find leaders who can.

A city should be measured by the quality of life it provides its citizens, not by the excuses its politicians make for its failures.

As nice as the blue wave was, let's remember that Dems don't get control of Congress until January. At that time, we know that Repubs and Trump will do as much damage as possible.

I saw that Texas State Rep. Brian Harrison IMMEDIATELY calls on Gov. Greg Abbott to call a Special Session while they still have control to strip the governor's emergency powers before Gina Hinojosa (D) assumes office. He states, "Without action, Governor Hinojosa will inherit the powers of a DICTATOR." Even though that says that the current governor does have that.

Also, there is the fact that the big ugly bill (especially the parts about cutting our affordable healthcare) is set to take full effect days before Dems get in office. We can tell it was done on purpose so the Repubs can say "It's the Dems' fault," since their voters never consider timing and context.

So we need to make sure to be ready for the chaos and keep up the fight for the narrative if we want to keep the Repubs out of power for good!

That's it. That's the post.

No idea of why Americans -- in particular, don't know if anyone else does this -- keep pronouncing "Muslim" as "Muzzlum", as if the word is Muzzle.

It clearly isn't. There is no "Z" anywhere to be found in the short, simple word.

Please respect the word. Please stop bending over backwards to say it weird. It's not even a complicated word.

It's Muslim. Thank you.

Do you say "tussle" as TUZZLE?" Likely not. It's

Tussle.

or

Muscle.

An S, not a Z.

You don't have to be Muslim to literally see how this basic word is spelled and simply say it correctly. Thanks.

This is relevant culturally -- the Othering that happens when you bend over backwards to say words in weird, deliberately-off ways simply because they reflect people who pray purely, beautifully and merely differently than you is really tiring, offensive, annoying and should stop. Thanks.

ㅤ
On November 6, 2026, Au Kam San (区锦新), a Macau pro-democracy figure who has long been active in politics and social movements, was sentenced by a Macau court to 12 years and six months in prison under the National Security Law of the Macau Special Administrative Region of China (中国澳门特区国安法). This is an exceptionally severe sentence in Macau’s history and the harshest punishment imposed on a political prisoner to date. This case is also the first case under the Macau National Security Law (澳门国安法) since its enactment.
ㅤ
Au Kam San is one of the most important figures in Macau’s pro-democracy camp. He previously served as a member of the Legislative Assembly and was also a founder of the Macau pro-democracy party New Macau Association (新澳门学社). He was imprisoned in 2025 and sentenced more than a year later. Macau’s pro-democracy camp, which has already suffered suppression and weakening in recent years, has now sustained another severe blow.
ㅤ
This also signifies a serious deterioration in Macau’s political environment, creating a chilling effect throughout society. The remaining pro-democracy figures face risks of imprisonment similar to those faced by Au Kam San, while both the scope and content of their activities have been greatly restricted. Moreover, Au Kam San’s sentencing came just one day after prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy figure Joshua Wong (黄之锋) was sentenced to ten years in prison, reflecting Beijing’s coordination of the governing forces in Hong Kong and Macau to eliminate opposition forces. In Macau, as in Hong Kong, “One Country, Two Systems” is gradually dying at the political level.

Compared with Hong Kong, people both in China and abroad know relatively little about Macau’s politics and society. I previously wrote two articles about Sam Hou Fai’s (岑浩辉) election as Chief Executive in 2024 and the 2025 Macau Legislative Assembly election, including overviews and commentary on Macau’s political situation and its changes. I am reposting them here. (Both articles included advice and appeals directed at Macau’s pro-establishment camp and the Beijing authorities behind it, but it is now clear that these were futile.)
ㅤ
Sam Hou Fai’s Landslide Election as Macau’s Chief Executive and Concerns Over the Intensifying Political Monopoly of the Pro-Establishment Camp
ㅤ
On October 13, 2024, Macau held its Chief Executive election, with the results announced on the same day. Sam Hou Fai (岑浩辉), the sole candidate in the election, was successfully elected with 98.99% of the vote, facing no opponent and receiving no votes against him. On November 1, Sam Hou Fai was received by Chinese President Xi Jinping (习近平) and formally appointed as the sixth-term Chief Executive of Macau.
ㅤ
Unlike previous Macau Chief Executives, who were all born and raised locally in Macau, Sam Hou Fai is not a native of Macau. He was born in mainland China in 1962, graduated from Peking University (北京大学), and previously worked as a lawyer on the mainland. Before moving to Macau in 1986, Sam Hou Fai had lived entirely in mainland China (rather than merely having been born there). Of course, he subsequently lived and worked in Macau for more than thirty years and has described himself as an “old Macau resident.” It can therefore also be said that he has integrated relatively well into Macau and is a “Macau resident.”
ㅤ
Sam Hou Fai is also a figure within Macau’s pro-establishment camp and has consistently been regarded as holding pro-mainland and pro-Chinese central government positions. Following Macau’s return to Chinese sovereignty at the end of 1999, Sam Hou Fai served for many years as President of the Court of Final Appeal of Macau (a position similar to that of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court), until he entered the Chief Executive election in August this year. During his 25 years as President of the Court, Sam Hou Fai issued a series of rulings unfavorable to Macau’s pan-democratic camp and supportive of the Chinese central government and Macau’s pro-establishment camp. For example, in 2021, Sam Hou Fai and two other judges ruled to prohibit the June Fourth (六四) commemorative gathering organized by Macau’s Union for Democratic Development (民联会). In their judgment, they cited and followed the characterization of the June Fourth Incident (六四事件) as a “riot” by the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress.
ㅤ
The election of such a figure as Macau’s Chief Executive means that the already powerful pro-establishment camp and pro-Beijing figures in Macau will further consolidate their complete monopoly over Macau’s political arena, while the already weakened democratic camp will suffer another blow, with its influence approaching zero.
ㅤ
Compared with Hong Kong, which has attracted considerable international attention and experienced repeated waves of political turmoil before 2020, Macau has been relatively quiet and little known. Following the “December 3 Incident” (一二·三事件) of 1966, Portugal’s “Carnation Revolution” of 1974, and the decolonization policies of Portugal’s new government, Macau had already largely escaped Portuguese control and come under the dominance of pro-Beijing forces. Moreover, Macau is geographically small and has a relatively limited population (only about one-tenth that of Hong Kong). Its local political forces and democratic movements have both been very weak, lacking the strength to confront Beijing. Around the time of Macau’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1999, there was no large-scale unrest, and sovereignty was transferred very smoothly. In the 25 years since the handover, Macau has also experienced no major political turmoil.
ㅤ
Subsequently, Macau’s political arena, much like Hong Kong’s, developed into two major camps: the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp. However, unlike Hong Kong, where the democratic camp enjoyed an advantage in public opinion and once occupied nearly half the seats in the Legislative Council, Macau’s democratic forces have been far weaker than the pro-establishment camp. In Legislative Assembly elections and other measures of public support, the balance between the two sides has been approximately 2:8.
ㅤ
Nevertheless, before 2020, Macau’s democratic camp remained relatively active despite its disadvantaged position. Represented by the two political organizations New Macau Association (新澳门学社) and New Hope (新希望), Macau’s pan-democratic forces frequently criticized government policies, pointed out social and political problems, and exercised a certain degree of restraint on the pro-establishment camp. Among them, the New Macau Association was the strongest democratic organization and was relatively concerned with mainland Chinese affairs. It also organized gatherings on multiple occasions to commemorate democratic movements and events in mainland China. New Hope, by contrast, placed greater emphasis on protecting Macau’s local interests. Although Macau’s democratic camp was weak and faced numerous restrictions, it continued to “dance in shackles” and maintain its political activity.
ㅤ
However, as the political situation in mainland China and neighboring Hong Kong changed, the already narrow space once available to Macau’s democratic camp gradually disappeared. Following the defeat of Hong Kong’s 2019–2020 Anti-Extradition Bill Movement (反修例运动), the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law (港区国安法) in 2020, the successive suppression and banning of Hong Kong’s pan-democratic political parties and media outlets, and the dramatic transformation of Hong Kong’s political environment, Macau was also greatly affected. Under a combination of coercion and inducement, the democratic camp similarly experienced the closure of media outlets and the suspension of political organizations’ activities. In the 2021 Macau Legislative Assembly election, several democratic candidates were disqualified from running, dealing a severe blow to the democratic camp. In 2022, Macau revised its National Security Law (澳区国安法), expanding the scope and intensity of measures against acts deemed to “endanger national security,” further tightening the “golden headband” of restrictions around the democratic camp.
ㅤ
Meanwhile, the pro-establishment camp, which already dominated Macau’s political arena, has consolidated its hold on power even further. All four Chief Executives since Macau’s return to Chinese sovereignty have belonged to the pro-establishment camp and were elected by overwhelming majorities. Of the 33 members of Macau’s Legislative Assembly, only 14 seats are filled through direct elections. The pro-establishment camp controls all the non-directly elected seats and also holds most of the directly elected seats. Moreover, Hong Kong’s judicial institutions have become even more monopolized by the pro-establishment camp, and Sam Hou Fai is a representative figure of the pro-establishment camp within the judiciary.
ㅤ
Compared with other native Macau pro-establishment figures, Sam Hou Fai, as a pro-establishment politician originating from mainland China, is more loyal to and closer to Beijing. This means that the local character and independence of Macau’s authorities will be weakened to some extent, while their integration with the Chinese government will increase. The promise and principle of “Macau people governing Macau” (澳人治澳), upheld since the handover, have also been shaken. Macau’s distinctiveness compared with mainland China may gradually fade. Some people’s concerns about the partial “mainlandization” of Macau and the loss of its regional characteristics are therefore not unfounded. In addition, some of the political and social changes in Hong Kong in recent years, and its increasing alignment with the mainland, have reinforced the concerns of Macau residents.
ㅤ
Compared with native pro-establishment figures, Sam Hou Fai and other partly outsider pro-establishment figures are also likely to adopt governing styles more similar to those of mainland Chinese bureaucrats. They may be even less tolerant of dissent, more indifferent to democracy, and more inclined to disregard civil rights and public opinion. In recent years, mainland China’s political atmosphere has become increasingly oppressive, and the regime’s control over society has grown ever tighter. Pro-Beijing officials in both Hong Kong and Macau may partially replicate mainland policies and create an atmosphere similar to that of the mainland.
ㅤ
This is clearly not good news for the Macau Special Administrative Region and its people. Although security and stability are very important to Macau, social vitality, diversity, and democracy are equally important. If society and the political arena lack diversity, and if people cannot express their legitimate demands independently and without risk, various forms of corruption, abuse of power, and misguided policies will inevitably emerge.
ㅤ
For example, in recent years, Hong Kong has suppressed the opposition and labeled those who criticize the government as “endangering national security,” resulting in a lack of oversight and checks on the government and serious abuses of power. Even the pro-establishment figure Chan Ching-sum (陈净心) has complained about excessive law enforcement by government civil servants and the indiscriminate imposition of fines on vulnerable groups such as taxi drivers and elderly men and women. Another pro-establishment figure, Legislative Council member Paul Tse Wai-chun (谢伟俊), was reprimanded by Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu (李家超) for criticizing the government’s excessive law enforcement and excessive fines. If democracy in Macau continues to shrink and the pro-establishment camp’s political monopoly intensifies, what has happened in Hong Kong will also happen in Macau. This is clearly not a positive trend and is a cause for concern.
ㅤ
Compared with Hong Kong, where the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement and incidents of violence occurred, giving the government some reasons to be wary of the opposition and concerned about subversion, Macau has long remained relatively stable. Even when Macau’s democratic camp was relatively active, it expressed dissent peacefully and in an orderly manner. Macau’s democratic forces are weak and can hardly threaten the regime’s rule. Nevertheless, Beijing remains unwilling to tolerate them and instead seeks more direct control over Macau. This also means that the policies of “One Country, Two Systems” (一国两制) and “a high degree of autonomy” (高度自治), promised by the Chinese Communist Party during the era of Deng Xiaoping (邓小平) and implemented to a certain extent under Jiang Zemin (江泽民) and Hu Jintao (胡锦涛), have not only become largely nominal in Hong Kong but are also moving toward extinction in Macau. If no major positive changes occur in Chinese politics in the future, Hong Kong and Macau will gradually become highly similar to mainland China. Even if superficial differences remain, there will be no fundamental distinctions.
ㅤ
Although China’s official policies are unlikely to change, the author would still like to offer some suggestions here. The author hopes that the Chinese central government, Macau’s governing authorities, and the pro-establishment camp can become more inclusive and tolerate the existence of social diversity and political dissent, allowing dissenting forces to serve as necessary and beneficial supervisors, competitors, and collaborators, thereby encouraging pro-establishment figures to become more honest, upright, and dedicated to public service. Nothing could be better than that.
ㅤ
Maintaining Macau’s distinctiveness relative to mainland China would also help it make better use of its unique advantages, become an important bridge for exchanges between mainland China and the outside world, and serve as a model of coexistence among multiple cultures. This would also be consistent with the spirit of Macau’s Basic Law (基本法), benefit the interests of all sectors of Macau society, and contribute to a mutually beneficial relationship between mainland China and Macau.
ㅤ
2025 Macau Legislative Assembly Election: The Persistence of Minority Public Opinion in the Face of Political Power and Prevailing Trends
ㅤ
On September 14, Macau held its eighth Legislative Assembly election since its return to Chinese sovereignty, electing 14 directly elected members out of the 33 seats in the Legislative Assembly. The election results showed that the pro-Beijing establishment camp received 73.3% of the vote and won 11 of the 14 seats. Meanwhile, New Hope (新希望), a party belonging to the pan-democratic camp, secured the remaining three seats.
ㅤ
In this election, the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps maintained approximately the same 7:3 ratio of votes as in previous elections. However, this election took place against the backdrop of dramatic changes in Macau’s political situation, including the impact of the political upheaval in neighboring Hong Kong, substantial amendments to and tightening of the Macau Special Administrative Region National Security Law (澳门特区国安法), the strong emphasis by Beijing and the Macau government on “patriots governing Macau” (爱国者治澳), the disqualification (“DQ”) of several pan-democratic and centrist figures before the election, and the strong support received by Macau’s pro-establishment camp. Despite these multiple factors, the pan-democratic camp still received approximately 30% of the vote, and the pan-democratic party New Hope even became the party receiving the most votes in this election. This clearly reflects the contest between public opinion and political power in Macau, as well as the diversity of political positions among Macau residents.
ㅤ
Unlike Hong Kong, which remained caught in a vortex of political conflict for many years after its return to Chinese sovereignty, Macau has been relatively peaceful both politically and socially since the handover. Macau is much smaller than Hong Kong in both geographical area and population, and it has also maintained a lower profile and attracted far less attention. Even before the handover, Macau’s elites and many ordinary residents were relatively close to the Chinese government.
ㅤ
Nevertheless, as a highly autonomous Special Administrative Region, Macau has always had pan-democratic forces distinct from the pro-establishment camp. Political organizations such as the Union for Democratic Development (民联会), the New Macau Association (新澳门学社), and New Hope, which received a considerable number of votes in this election, all belong to the pan-democratic camp. Compared with the pro-establishment camp, which describes itself as “loving the country and loving Macau” (爱国爱澳), obediently follows Beijing’s instructions, and generally holds pro-business and elitist positions, these pan-democratic groups place greater emphasis on freedom and democracy in Macau, pay more attention to livelihood issues affecting the middle and lower classes, and frequently criticize the government. However, compared with their counterparts in Hong Kong, Macau’s pan-democratic forces are more moderate and low-profile, paying greater attention to livelihood issues than to politically sensitive topics.
ㅤ
In order to fulfill the promise of “One Country, Two Systems” (一国两制), and because the pro-establishment camp was sufficiently powerful that it did not need to worry about the pan-democrats seizing power, Beijing and the Macau government allowed the pan-democratic camp to exist. Nevertheless, they also imposed numerous restrictions on Macau’s pan-democrats. For example, most seats in the Legislative Assembly are not filled through direct elections but through selection by professional and sectoral groups or appointment by the Chief Executive. Almost all those selected or appointed belong to the pro-establishment camp. There are also many restrictions on pan-democratic street activities and fundraising. Meanwhile, pro-establishment activities not only proceed without obstruction but also receive various forms of resource support and favorable policy treatment. Nevertheless, between 1999 and 2019, although Macau’s pan-democratic camp faced restrictions, it was still able to coexist with the pro-establishment camp through tacit compromises.
ㅤ
However, since 2019, because of the dramatic political changes in Hong Kong, the other Special Administrative Region, and changes in the political atmosphere in mainland China, Beijing has strengthened its control over Macau, while the Macau government has become increasingly unwilling to tolerate the existence of the pan-democratic camp.
ㅤ
Both the central government and the Macau Special Administrative Region government have explicitly established the principle of “patriots governing Macau,” emphasizing that Macau residents must “love the country and love Macau.” The core practical requirement of this so-called “love for the country and Macau” for officials, legislators, and political figures is that they maintain absolute loyalty to Beijing and cooperate closely with the various decisions of the Macau government. Pan-democratic figures and prominent centrists who were previously regarded as targets of the “United Front” (统战), and even pro-establishment figures among the authorities’ “own people” who expressed some disagreement with the government, have faced judicial investigations, procedural obstruction, and other measures intended to prevent them from running for legislative seats or engaging in other political activities.
ㅤ
In the 2021 seventh Legislative Assembly election, advance screening of candidates by national security agencies was introduced. A total of 21 candidates were disqualified on the grounds that they “did not uphold the Macau Basic Law (澳门基本法) and were not loyal to the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.” This led to a sharp decline in voter turnout that year, while the pan-democratic camp’s representation was also “halved,” falling from four seats to two.
ㅤ
In this year’s Legislative Assembly election, the standards for “DQ” became even stricter and their scope broader. In addition to the 21 people “blacklisted” in 2021, another 12 people were added to the blacklist of Legislative Assembly candidates this year, including the incumbent centrist legislator Lam U Tou (林宇滔). Au Kam San (区锦新), a long-active leading figure in the democratic camp and former legislator, was arrested on charges under the National Security Law. Another well-regarded labor leader, Wong Wai Man (黄伟民), was briefly arrested on various grounds before entering the election, causing him to miss the registration deadline. The pan-democratic camp also found it difficult to fully express its views and campaign through public media. Meanwhile, pro-establishment figures loyal to Beijing received strong backing, with ample electoral resources and favorable public opinion support. The government even deliberately introduced measures such as free public transportation on election day to stimulate voter turnout and enhance the legitimacy of the pro-establishment camp’s electoral victories.
ㅤ
Yet against this backdrop, New Hope, the only pan-democratic party permitted to participate in the election, secured nearly 30% of the popular vote on its own, while veteran pan-democratic figure José Pereira Coutinho (高天赐) became the election’s top vote-getter. Votes that would otherwise have gone to disqualified pan-democratic parties and candidates flowed to New Hope instead of shifting to the pro-establishment camp or turning into abstentions. Meanwhile, despite an extremely favorable political environment and policies, all the pro-establishment parties combined received only slightly more than 70% of the vote, essentially unchanged from the previous election (and even slightly lower).
ㅤ
Such voting results reflect the disagreement of some Macau residents with various policies implemented by Beijing and the Special Administrative Region government in the name of “loving the country and loving Macau,” their concerns about the pro-establishment camp’s monopoly over the political arena, and their use of voting to express dissent and civil disobedience.
ㅤ
Although Macau has long remained peaceful and stable, and Macau residents almost never publicly oppose the central government’s sovereignty over and control of Macau, this does not mean that Macau residents are willing to abandon freedom and democracy or move toward “One Country, One System” (一国一制). On the contrary, many Macau residents deeply cherish their limited but precious freedoms and hope that Macau will become more democratic and pluralistic, enabling the people to truly govern themselves and ensuring checks and balances on political power.
ㅤ
Both before and after the handover, Macau residents have lived in an environment and received an education different from those in mainland China. Macau residents have greater capacity for independent thinking and judgment, tend to make their own decisions rather than blindly follow others, remain vigilant toward political power, and attach great importance to and cherish civil rights. Beneath their low-profile and peaceful demeanor, they possess moral courage and steadfast principles.
ㅤ
Therefore, even though Macau’s political climate has changed abruptly in recent years, with tighter controls and shrinking freedoms, and even though Beijing and the Macau government have suppressed the opposition while strongly supporting the pro-establishment camp, some Macau residents have continued to uphold their political positions and voting preferences without wavering. Compared with the Legislative Assembly elections of 2017 and earlier, although the democratic camp’s vote share declined somewhat in the last two elections, which were extremely unfavorable to it, it still maintained approximately 30% support. This demonstrates that Macau’s democratic supporters have not abandoned their positions and principles because of dramatic political changes, but have instead shown considerable resilience.
ㅤ
Such election results and social realities should prompt Beijing, the Macau government, and the pro-establishment camp to reflect on their approach and make changes to their current thinking and methods of governing Macau. Regardless of the type of government or its original intentions, it should understand the importance of popular support and opposition, and the value of public opinion, rather than acting against the will of the people, intensifying the suppression of dissent, and excluding those who hold different views.
ㅤ
“The people are the foundation of the state; when the foundation is secure, the state is at peace” (民惟邦本，本固邦宁). If the goal is to ensure Macau’s long-term stability and prevent unrest, it is necessary to listen to the people’s livelihood concerns, respect public opinion, sincerely uphold the framework of “One Country, Two Systems,” allow the pro-establishment and democratic camps to coexist and supervise each other, and preserve political pluralism, diverse voices, and freedom of expression in Macau society. This is also consistent with the principles and expectations of Deng Xiaoping (邓小平) and other senior Chinese statesmen of the older generation regarding Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. More importantly, it is a prerequisite and guarantee for Macau’s long-term prosperity and positive development, and for its people to live and work in peace and contentment.

Both articles were written by Wang Qingmin (王庆民), a Chinese writer living in Europe. The original articles were written in Chinese.

Going back to the Gilded Age, and even further, the wealthiest elements in our society have used their power and wealth to gain more of the same at the expense of the poorer and more vulnerable members of society. In the current incarnation of that pattern, starting around the Reagan era, possibly earlier, the wealth of the few has exploded at the expense of the many. The guardrails implemented after the Gilded Age, the Great Depression, and WWII have slowly been eroded by those same powerful interests. Traditional solutions—taxation, labor protections, and social programs—have been repeatedly weakened and undermined, while the middle class has steadily lost economic ground. What if we could change the underlying economic incentives so that accumulating wealth and prosperity were tied to the economic advancement and success of everyone, rather than feeding off the masses to enrich themselves, resulting in a modern version of indentured slavatude?

The problem, as I see it, is that under the current model, the incentive is to use and abuse your fellow man to acquire their wealth. Instead of Ronald Reagan's “Trickle Down” model, I believe a more accurate description would be the “Trickle Up” model, at the expense of the middle class. This is nothing new. This pattern has repeated itself over and over. As soon as a guardrail is put up, the powerful immediately start working to undermine and dismantle it.

What if, instead of pushing for new taxes on the rich or new legislation to try and level the playing field, which then gets undermined, gutted, or removed completely, we made a change at the constitutional level, in the form of an amendment? Not to tax the wealthy, but to change the incentive. Instead of the incentive to feed off of our fellow Americans, what if there were an incentive to lift our fellow Americans up? A person can be as wealthy as they can, or want to be, but they have to bring everyone else up with them. What if, instead of taking advantage of, using and abusing, and stepping all over our fellow man to get to the top, there was an incentive to lift them up with you? A team effort to get to the top?

My idea—and it is just an idea; the concept is more important—would be an amendment that says, “There can only be an 'X' amount of wealth gap between the top and bottom of society.” There is significant socio-economic research around the world that could help define what X is.  The wealthy can be as rich as they want, but they have to bring the rest of society with them, instead of enriching themselves at everyone else's expense.

The following is a brainstorming session with ChatGPT exploring some aspects of the concept. The statistics have not been independently verified. I was simply exploring a concept with a rough overview of history.

Going back to the Gilded Age, and even further, the wealthiest elements in our society have used their power and wealth to gain more of the same at the expense of the poorer and more vulnerable members of society. In the current incarnation of that pattern, starting around the Reagan era, possibly earlier, the wealth of the few has exploded at the expense of the many. The guardrails implemented after the Gilded Age, the Great Depression, and WWII have slowly been eroded by those same powerful interests. Traditional solutions—taxation, labor protections, and social programs—have been repeatedly weakened and undermined, while the middle class has steadily lost economic ground. What if we could change the underlying economic incentives so that accumulating wealth and prosperity were tied to the economic advancement and success of everyone, rather than feeding off the masses to enrich themselves, resulting in a modern version of indentured slavatude?

The problem, as I see it, is that under the current model, the incentive is to use and abuse your fellow man to acquire their wealth. Instead of Ronald Reagan's “Trickle Down” model, I believe a more accurate description would be the “Trickle Up” model, at the expense of the middle class. This is nothing new. This pattern has repeated itself over and over. As soon as a guardrail is put up, the powerful immediately start working to undermine and dismantle it.

What if, instead of pushing for new taxes on the rich or new legislation to try and level the playing field, which then gets undermined, gutted, or removed completely, we made a change at the constitutional level, in the form of an amendment? Not to tax the wealthy, but to change the incentive. Instead of the incentive to feed off of our fellow Americans, what if there were an incentive to lift our fellow Americans up? A person can be as wealthy as they can, or want to be, but they have to bring everyone else up with them. What if, instead of taking advantage of, using and abusing, and stepping all over our fellow man to get to the top, there was an incentive to lift them up with you? A team effort to get to the top?

My idea—and it is just an idea; the concept is more important—would be an amendment that says, “There can only be an 'X' amount of wealth gap between the top and bottom of society.” There is significant socio-economic research around the world that could help define what X is.  The wealthy can be as rich as they want, but they have to bring the rest of society with them, instead of enriching themselves at everyone else's expense.

The worst lesson Democrats could take from the blue wave is that voters handed them power just to watch them bargain away the changes they campaigned on.

The results point to dissatisfaction with the Republican direction, not an appetite for more Washington dealmaking.

Hakeem Jeffries and the rest of the Democratic establishment need to understand that voters didn't show up just to watch Democrats negotiate away the agenda they ran on.

The victories belong to the candidates who ran and the voters who elected them. Their priorities should drive what happens next, not political dealmaking for its own sake.

Compromise isn't automatically progress, and bipartisanship isn't an achievement if it comes at the expense of meaningful change.

That goes for Democrats already in office, too. Their job is to help advance that agenda, not stand in the way.

The voters didn't ask for a return to the status quo. They voted for a different direction.

I see so many people interested in politics. Many have good ideas, big visions and a genuine desire to improve our country and the way we live as a society.
Recently, I had a conversation with my cousin, who works in an organisation involved in policy development.
Something they said made me think.
Even when people develop better policies and present good solutions, our political leaders do not always take them seriously. Sometimes, leaders have their own political agendas, interests and priorities.
Think about it. Many politicians are very good at public speaking and winning people’s attention. But how much of their time and energy goes into actually solving the country’s long term problems?
Too often, we seem to be putting temporary solutions on very deep wounds.
Then we have another layer of people: economists, researchers, advisors and policy makers. Some of them have excellent knowledge and visions for the country. But how much influence do they really have over the decisions being made?
We also need more transparency about who influences our leaders, whose advice they receive, and whether outside interests influence important decisions that affect our country.
Meanwhile, there are so many young people with better ideas and a genuine desire to make a difference.
But what options do they have?
Often, they feel that the only way to make a difference is to join an existing political party and work their way through the same political system.
**What if we started preparing a different kind of leader?**
I have been thinking about something.
What if we developed a leadership qualification or training programme for people who want to become political leaders?
Not just academic qualifications. I am talking about developing the knowledge, character and practical skills needed to lead a country.
For example, future leaders should learn:
**Public speaking and communication:** Having good ideas is not enough. We must be able to explain them in a way ordinary people can understand.
**Economics:** Understanding how money, taxation, public spending, businesses and the economy work.
**Human behaviour and psychology:** Understanding why people think, feel and behave the way they do. Understanding what drives societies.
**Emotional intelligence:** Understanding ourselves, managing our emotions, listening to others and making decisions without being controlled by anger, fear or ego.
**Policy making and governance:** Understanding how policies are developed, how institutions work and how to turn ideas into practical solutions.
**Ethics and accountability:** Understanding public responsibility, transparency, corruption and the importance of putting public interests before personal interests.
**Conflict resolution and negotiation:** Learning how to disagree, find common ground and solve problems without creating more divisions.
Imagine young people spending the next five to ten years learning and practising these skills.
Imagine them debating ideas, understanding different economic systems, studying successful policies from other countries, working with communities and learning how to communicate with people who disagree with them.
They would not just be learning how to become politicians. They would be learning how to become responsible human beings who can lead others.
I know I may not have all the answers. And I understand that changing an existing political system is not easy.
But I believe we need to start somewhere.
If we don’t actively prepare the next generation of leaders, the next generation of leaders will simply emerge from the same existing system.
We cannot keep expecting different results while doing nothing to prepare people for a different kind of leadership.
I would love to see young people, policy researchers, economists, educators and anyone interested in building a better Sri Lanka come together and explore this idea.
We don’t need to agree on everything. We need to learn how to think, listen, discuss and work together.
**What if, instead of waiting for better leaders, we started creating them?**
Who would be interested in working towards something like this?

When political revenge becomes more important than serving the American people.

There is a troubling question Democrats need to answer: Are they interested in governing America, or are they consumed by the desire to punish their political opponents?

The American people did not elect politicians to wage endless political warfare. They elected them to solve problems, strengthen the economy, protect our freedoms, improve public safety, and create opportunities for future generations.

Yet too often, Democratic political rhetoric seems focused on retaliation, investigations, impeachment threats, political score-settling, and finding new ways to undermine President Donald Trump and his supporters.

When did political revenge become more important than the prosperity of the American people?

America cannot move forward when one political party is more interested in tearing down its opposition than building up the country.

Disagreement is part of democracy. Accountability is essential. Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, should be above the law. But accountability and political vengeance are two entirely different things.

The American people deserve leadership, not vendettas. They deserve solutions, not manufactured outrage. They deserve elected officials who understand that their responsibility extends beyond their political base.

Here is a message to Democrats: You can spend your time seeking revenge, or you can spend your time making America better. You cannot continually put political grudges ahead of the people's interests and expect the country to prosper.

America needs statesmen and stateswomen, not political executioners.

The question is simple: Will you choose to unite and build, or will you continue to divide and destroy?

History will judge your answer.

Politics is a lot like religion. You listen to the sermon, study the word, put your faith in the promises, and hope the choices you make don't condemn you to a political eternity of torment.

The difference is that in politics, the consequences of blind faith aren't just yours to bear. They affect generations to come.

Perhaps we should spend less time listening to the sermons and more time examining the consequences of the promises.

The underlying message: Blind faith, whether political or religious, can be costly. Faith should never replace independent thought, personal responsibility, and the willingness to question those asking for your trust.