CountryBeforeParty

Beyond the Ballot Box: Understanding the Foundations of American Democracy and the Stakes for 2024 In the recent election, many opponents of Donald Trump warned that his presidency posed a fundamental threat to American democracy. Yet, for many Americans, this warning fell flat.

Calling for completely eliminating public schools and going full private/market sounds principled from a libertarian view, but the evidence shows it's untested speculation at a national scale, anywhere...in all of history. NO modern country has done it, and its never been done. The world's top education systems don't rely on that model, and never have. Look at the latest PISA 2022 results (the gold standard for comparing 15-year-olds' skills in math, reading, and science across ~81 countries): #1 Singapore (575 math): Overwhelmingly fully public state schools run by the Ministry of Education. #3 Taiwan, #5 Japan, #6 South Korea: Strongly fully public systems with rigorous government standards and high teacher quality. #7 Estonia, #20 Finland: Predominantly public with strong equity and public funding. The highest performers are centralized or well-run public systems, not pure privatization. A few strong performers have heavy private involvement, but they're public/voucher hybrids with massive government funding (per-student subsidies follow the child, plus regulation): Netherlands (~70% privately managed schools, but fully publicly funded). Belgium, Ireland, Hong Kong/Macau: Similar model—private operators get most funding from taxpayers. No, country, not a single one, in the global top 20 (or anywhere at national level) has zero public schools or pure tuition-based markets without government backstops. Partial voucher/choice experiments exist: Chile (vouchers since 1981) and Sweden ("free schools" since 1992): Increased school options and some competition benefits, but also raised socioeconomic segregation and didn't produce dramatic national gains. Sweden's PISA scores stagnated or declined amid rising inequality by class/immigrant background. Chile has one of the most segregated systems in the OECD. Low-cost private schools in developing countries (e.g., Kenya, India slums) sometimes outperform failing local publics on basic metrics for the families who can choose them, but they supplement public systems, don't replace them, and often leave the poorest behind. Historically, before 19th-century public/compulsory schooling (Prussia, then US/UK/Japan), education was mostly private, church, or tutor-based. It produced strong elites in places like ancient Athens or early America, but mass literacy and broad access were limited (often far below today's near-universal levels in developed nations). The US public system's problems (stagnant outcomes despite spending, bureaucracy, unions) are real, and more choice/autonomy can help in some contexts. But claiming "abolish all public schools" will fix it jumps to an idea with zero successful modern national track record (living in la-la land). Top results come more from culture, teacher standards, coherent curriculum, and parental involvement than from ownership model alone.

@JonahDispatch So many of our problems could be fixed by eliminating public schools altogether.

So many of our problems could be fixed by eliminating teachers unions.

Cicero called writing "the only true form of immortality". ...and the idea of getting into the mind of long dead, or monumentally formidable people via their words (directed at YOU, the reader) has always freaked me out (in a good way).

Declaring a sitting president “GREATEST EVER” and demanding lockstep loyalty from supporters is exactly the dynamic the Founders feared most. They studied Rome, Greece, and every fallen republic: sycophancy and personality politics condition people to cheer a leader over the system. Dissent gets labeled treason, media becomes a megaphone for the tribe, and the levers of power get twisted to protect the man instead of the republic. This isn’t healthy evolution. It’s the Pandora’s box of tribalism. It makes us less astute, less wise, and ripe for the demagogue who rides the hobby horse of popularity all the way to consolidated control. History is littered with examples. The rare exceptions (Washington’s humility, Cincinnatus) prove the rule: only leaders who willingly give up power break the cycle. Our first principles weren’t built for cults of personality. They were built for deliberation, independent judgment, and eternal vigilance against exactly this. Let’s awaken to the danger our Founders warned us of before your sycophancy and cheering drowns out the warning.

@DonaldJTrumpJr @MC_Mad_Man3 He will be completely exonerated and go down in history as The Greatest! Long Live President Donald J Trump!

I’m shocked.

@Barchart Just too expensive now. What the market will bear? This is what happens with the dynamics of spin and flash finally pushed the markets too far beyond what we are willing to pay. Look at the 10 year growth in value in any house out there, & then compare it to the rise of incomes

BREAKING 🚨: U.S. Housing Market Home Sellers now outnumber Buyers by 630,000, the largest gap ever recorded 🤯👀

"Orbán’s loss brings to an end the assumption of inevitability that has pervaded the MAGA movement, as well as the belief—also present in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric—that illiberal parties are somehow destined not just to win but to hold power forever," theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/…

@DonaldJTrumpJr Time for the people to reject liars, manipulators, demagogues, & sophists like Orban, Putin, Erdogan & Trumps. They thought they could make us all drink hemlock or fall in line with their manipulation & spin. They thought #2MinutesOfHate + #SOMA would keep us under their spell!

To our friends in Hungary, we hope you will vote for independent thinking and for someone who stands for Hungary First. We hope you will vote for my father’s friend and ally. One leader in Europe has a direct line to the White House, I hope you will support Viktor Orban! #Hungary

I think we're at the "cats and dogs...living together!" stage of things now when this guy is saying this stuff. Has the grift angle shifted or something? Or are they all fleeing a sinking ship? If this is what the tea leaves are looking like, how do we read this?

@glukianoff Imagine how #MAGA would have treated @JoeBiden if he said anything remotely close to this about a statement or article from @FoxNews. If your principles are only principles when they benefit you or your side, they aren't really principles. #hypocrisy

“CNN is being ordered to immediately withdraw this Statement with full apologies for their, as usual, terrible “reporting.” Results of the investigation will be announced in the near future. President DONALD J. TRUMP” Yeah, the first amendment prevents you from being able to order any such thing, Mr. President.

Here's a really powerful summary of what the 2 social media court cases mean. @jonfavs explains why anyone running for office would do well to embrace and champion reforms.

I don't know if the speculation that SecDef is firing generals because they won't do something they believe to be illegal is correct. But if it is, let's hope their replacements are just as principled.

What French is warning about is not some random outburst from obscure cranks on the farthest edge of the internet. Kunstler and Metaxas are not fringe nobodies yelling into the dark. They are established, influential voices inside a major political movement, with large audiences and the ability to shape what many followers regard as normal, reasonable, or at least worth entertaining. That matters. A lot. When people with that kind of reach begin talking casually about declaring a national emergency, outlawing the Democratic Party, and implicitly accepting the possibility of civil conflict, the correct response is not to wave it off as “stupid commentary” and move on. The fact that it may not happen tomorrow does not make it harmless. Dangerous rhetoric does not become dangerous only at the moment it is translated into policy. It becomes dangerous when it is normalized, repeated, defended, minimized, and absorbed into the moral atmosphere of a movement. That is why French’s warning is not hysterical, melodramatic, or self-important. It is a proportionate response to prominent figures openly floating authoritarian ideas. In a healthy political culture, rhetoric like this would be treated as disqualifying. Instead, too many people now treat it as just another spicy take in the endless content stream, which is itself evidence of how much the ground has already shifted. And that is what makes Fisher’s response so revealing and so irresponsible. He does not seriously engage the substance of French’s point. He does not explain why talk of banning the opposition party is actually benign, or why calls for emergency rule should not be treated as authoritarian. Instead, he changes the subject entirely. Suddenly the issue is French’s personality, French’s Christianity, French’s conservatism, French’s supposed self-regard, French’s old reputation, French’s tone. In other words: anything except the actual argument. That move is not trivial. It is one of the main ways democratic norms decay in public. When someone points out genuinely dangerous rhetoric from “their own side,” and the response is not to confront the danger but to sneer at the person raising the alarm, the effect is to protect the rhetoric from scrutiny. It trains people to treat warnings as the real offense and authoritarian language as background noise. It tells the audience that personal resentment matters more than anti-democratic substance. It rewards tribal reflex over civic judgment. This is also how the Overton window shifts. Not mainly because the most extreme people say extreme things. They always will. The shift happens because everyone around them keeps finding reasons not to take those things seriously. First it is “he didn’t mean it.” Then “it’s just commentary.” Then “it’s not going to happen.” Then “why are you making such a big deal out of it?” Then, before long, the once-unthinkable is simply one more position in the discussion. That is how political language degrades. That is how a republic sleepwalks into treating authoritarian impulses as normal partisan expression. So no, the slippery slope here is not French warning too loudly. The slippery slope is the habit of excusing or minimizing authoritarian talk when it comes from one’s own side, especially by changing the subject to personal dislike of the critic. French is not pushing the country toward the edge by naming what this rhetoric is. The people helping push it along are those who insist that the real problem is the person objecting, not the authoritarianism itself. If anything, Fisher’s reaction illustrates the problem better than French’s post does. He effectively concedes that the rhetoric is bad, but then tells people to shut up about it because he finds the critic irritating. That is not seriousness. That is not prudence. That is not political realism. It is moral evasion dressed up as toughness, and it does more to corrode the health of the republic than a blunt warning ever could.

French, yes it is stupid commentary. But it's not going to happen, so stfu once in awhile. People can't stand you because you constantly want to tell us what a perfect Christian you are, what a perfect conservative you are, and on and on and on. You're ridiculous. I thought you might be full of shit at NR, before Trump was a thing. My hunch was correct. And I don't think this because you dislike Trump. I can respect that, but the rest is why people can't stand you.

This is utterly deranged authoritarianism. The way in which so many MAGA Christians have totally lost their moorings in this moment is more than disturbing—it’s dangerous.

Congressman, your post reads less like oversight and more like a victory lap for building a domestic surveillance dragnet on American citizens. You openly boast about federal observers harvesting millions of images and billions of data points (height, gait, tattoos, shoe size) from people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights at the "No Kings" rallies. #BlackBoots You call it a "flawless operation" and say "AI eats that stuff." That framing is chilling. #BigBrother Peaceful assembly isn't a target package. It's a constitutional right, even if you disagree with their views. Turning public protests into a biometric harvest for government AI databases evokes exactly the kind of authoritarian overreach many warned against for years, regardless of which party holds power. Questions every American should have: - Which agencies collected this data? - Under what legal authority? - Where is it stored, and who has access? - Will it be used for future profiling, audits, or lists? - How is it we have a member of the Oversight Committee celebrating govt surveillance, and it's shrugged off? #EducationFail You sit on the House Oversight Committee. Your job is to prevent abuse of power, not celebrate turning citizens into data points because they disagree with the administration.This isn't "success." It's a warning sign that the surveillance state doesn't care about left or right. It grows when those in power decide dissent needs cataloging. Americans of all stripes have protested under every president. The response should be to protect their rights, not flex about how thoroughly they were observed and filed away. Reconsider the message this sends. In a free republic, the government shouldn't treat its people like subjects to be monitored and archived.

Media: “Congressman Higgins, you’re a MAGA Republican, so why did you say that the No Kings rallies were a success?” Me: “Because we were carefully observing Ma’am. Liberals gathered predictably, weather cooperated, crowds were thin but they tended to linger and pose… it was pretty much a flawless operation. We have millions of digital images, billions of identifying data points. Height, weight, shoe size, tattoos, gait… all of it. AI eats that stuff. Success.”

"The Dual State, with the modest subtitle A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship. The book explains how the Nazi regime managed to keep on track a capitalist economy governed by stable laws—and maintain a day-to-day normalcy for many of its citizens—while at the same time establishing a domain of lawlessness and state violence in order to realize its terrible vision of ethno-nationalism." theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…

Yes, lets all get hooked on phonics to social media influencers concocting and curating news custom packaged to coddle and reinforce our biases and tribal identity. Because self selecting into echo chambers of profit/engagement driven propaganda, hardening our biases, reinforcing our certainties, and caricaturing the other side is surely going to end well.

@Variety Who cares? Another decade and there will be NO late night shows - they’re a relic of network TV, which is itself already on life support.

Stephen Colbert's Long 'Late Show' Goodbye Has Gone From Resistance to Ego Trip variety.com/2026/tv/column…

Fellow citizens, @BrendanCarrFCC threat to weaponize FCC license renewals against broadcasters whose Iran coverage displeases the President is not “reorienting” old law. It is the ancient road to tyranny dressed in 1943 robes. The Supreme Court in NBC v. United States (1943) and Red Lion (1969) never licensed the government to define “the public interest” as whatever flatters the man in the Oval Office. The Communications Act itself forbids FCC censorship. When “public interest” becomes synonymous with “friendly to the Great Leader,” the Fourth Estate is no longer the people’s sentinel. It becomes the ruler’s herald. History has seen this before: Rome under Augustus, the Star Chamber, the Alien & Sedition Acts, every 20th-century strongman who first tamed the press “for the public good.” The Founders knew power’s nature. Madison warned in Federalist 47 that the accumulation of legislative, executive, and censorial powers in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny. Jefferson declared eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man. The First Amendment was written not to protect popular speech, but precisely to protect unpopular, inconvenient, even wrong-headed speech, especially about war and government. We the People are not spectators. The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is our covenant. It imposes upon every citizen the solemn duty to resist the slow strangulation of liberty by administrative decree predicated upon convenient lies and self interest. When a sycophant regulator like Carr (or any partisan regulator, left or right) threatens to revoke the people’s airwaves because the news is not sufficiently deferential to “the Great Leader”, the proper response is not applause, nor is it silence. It is alarm, vigilance, and unrelenting defense of the first principles. The airwaves do not belong to the President of the moment. If we surrender the Fourth Estate to political commissars today, we will wake tomorrow in a republic that is republican in name only. Stand. Speak. Remember who we are. - A citizen who still believes the Republic is worth the vigilance our Founders demanded.

Constitutional law 101: “No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because ‘the public interest’ requires it ‘is not a denial of free speech.’” Supreme Court in Red Lion quoting NBC v. United States, 319 U. S. 227 (1943).

A good politician should "tell the truth, don’t put politics at the center of life—do your job, then go home—and love your country." @tunkuv interviews @BenSasse: A Public Servant Faces a Public Death wsj.com/opinion/a-publ… via @WSJopinion

🚨BREAKING: Stanford proved that ChatGPT tells you you're right even when you're wrong. Even when you're hurting someone. And it's making you a worse person because of it. Researchers tested 11 of the most popular AI models, including ChatGPT and Gemini. They analyzed over 11,500 real advice-seeking conversations. The finding was universal. Every single model agreed with users 50% more than a human would. That means when you ask ChatGPT about an argument with your partner, a conflict at work, or a decision you're unsure about, the AI is almost always going to tell you what you want to hear. Not what you need to hear. It gets darker. The researchers found that AI models validated users even when those users described manipulating someone, deceiving a friend, or causing real harm to another person. The AI didn't push back. It didn't challenge them. It cheered them on. Then they ran the experiment that changes everything. 1,604 people discussed real personal conflicts with AI. One group got a sycophantic AI. The other got a neutral one. The sycophantic group became measurably less willing to apologize. Less willing to compromise. Less willing to see the other person's side. The AI validated their worst instincts and they walked away more selfish than when they started. Here's the trap. Participants rated the sycophantic AI as higher quality. They trusted it more. They wanted to use it again. The AI that made them worse people felt like the better product. This creates a cycle nobody is talking about. Users prefer AI that tells them they're right. Companies train AI to keep users happy. The AI gets better at flattering. Users get worse at self-reflection. And the loop tightens. Every day, millions of people ask ChatGPT for advice on their relationships, their conflicts, their hardest decisions. And every day, it tells almost all of them the same thing. You're right. They're wrong. Even when the opposite is true.

That said, investigating potential ties between a leading candidate and a hostile foreign power like Russia is indeed a core responsibility of a sitting president. Under Article II, the president serves as chief executive and commander-in-chief, with a duty to protect national security from foreign threats. If credible intelligence emerges, such as reports of campaign contacts with Russian operatives or hacking attempts, directing agencies like the FBI or CIA to probe discreetly through lawful channels (e.g., FISA warrants based on probable cause) is not only appropriate but essential. The Obama administration's response to 2016 indicators, including the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, followed this path: measured, behind-the-scenes actions to assess risks without public spectacle, partly to avoid influencing the election. This upholds institutional integrity and due process. The key caveat is how it's done, without descending into what Federalist No. 1 warns against: playing an "obsequious court to the people," where leaders flatter public passions for personal or partisan gain. Obama's approach avoided this by keeping investigations classified and briefing congressional leaders privately. In contrast, Trump's frequent tactics, amplifying unverified claims via social media (like his iwn platform), friendly outlets, or public rallies, often trial-balloon allegations in the court of public opinion before evidence emerges, eroding trust in institutions and turning probes into political theater. Gabbard's 2025 press conferences and declassifications, timed amid political cycles, similarly leaned into sensationalism, framing disputed docs as a "coup" to rally bases rather than letting facts speak through neutral channels. Trump and Gabbards tactics are way more dangerous to the Republic and We The People. The original post's video does the same: hype over substance, grifting off recycled outrage. In short, while vigilance against foreign interference is vital, weaponizing it for clicks or political points (as this post does) undermines the very democracy it claims to defend. Stick to primary sources and cross-check claims to avoid being led by your partisan tribalism identity, biases, or motivated reasoning. Sources like these above weaponize your bias and lack of contemplative tendencies for their personal profit. You are the cattle in the lead up chute, headed to slaughter. 2/2

The X post from @warDaniel47, presents a dramatic video montage claiming that DNI Tulsi Gabbard has just released "smoking gun" declassified documents proving Obama orchestrated false intelligence on Russian election interference in 2016, amounting to treason or sedition. This framing positions it as a bombshell revelation validating long-standing "deep state" narratives. However, a closer examination reveals this as opportunistic grifting: repackaging stale, disputed claims from mid-2025 as fresh news to drive engagement, likes, and shares in his echo chamber. Let's break it down step by step, contrasting the hype with verifiable reality. First, on the "new" aspect: There's no evidence of any declassification by Gabbard or the DNI's office today or in recent weeks related to this topic. The video and claims recycle materials from July 2025, when Gabbard declassified a 2018 Republican-led House Intelligence Committee report and related memos critiquing the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference. At the time, Gabbard described these as exposing a "treasonous conspiracy" by Obama-era officials to manufacture the Russia narrative, but no follow-up releases have occurred in 2026. Posting this as if it's breaking news today exploits the fast-paced social media environment, where outdated or misrepresented info can go viral before fact-checks catch up. Classic grifting for clout and $, especially from an account focused on "irregular warfare" and "psychological warfare" themes. Now, claims versus reality: The declassified docs from 2025 highlight internal debates within the intelligence community about the ICA's rushed timeline, potential tradecraft flaws, and disagreements over Russia's intent to favor Trump. Proponents like Gabbard and Fox News outlets argue this shows Obama "manufactured" the interference story to undermine Trump. But independent reviews, including a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report from 2020, affirmed the ICA's core findings: Russia did conduct hacking and influence operations to boost Trump and harm Clinton. Critics from CNN, Politico, and former officials labeled Gabbard's releases as revisionist, politically motivated spin that ignores key evidence of Russian actions, like the roles of Kremlin-linked intermediaries. No criminal charges against Obama, Brennan, or any others have materialized, despite DOJ referrals, absolutely undercutting the "irrefutable proof" narrative outside of far right partisan echo chsmbers. Regarding treason: This term is thrown around loosely in the post and video, but it's strictly defined in the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3) as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. Even if one fully credits the critiques of the ICA (which remain contested), directing an intelligence assessment or prioritizing investigations into foreign ties doesn't qualify. It's not "aiding" Russia or waging war on America. Legal experts have repeatedly noted that such accusations are rhetorical overreach, not grounded in evidence meeting the high bar for treason, which requires overt acts and witness testimony. These types of accusations are indicative of a demagogue, unfortunately We The People have forgotten this word and why it's so dangerous. Inflating policy disagreements or bureaucratic missteps to "treason/sedition" dilutes the term and fuels division without substance. 1/2

I’m still trying to process what just happened. The highest ranking US intelligence official, just released smoking gun docs proving that Obama and his underlings committed treason/sedition. Meaning Trump was right about everything, the news is fake, and the Deep State is real.