It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the time that tried men's souls.

 It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the time that tried men's souls. 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was a time of profound intelligence and strength, and ignorance and weakness. It was a time of profound bravery and courage, and profound cowardice and shame. It was a time of almost infinite, unfathomable knowledge, available at everyone's fingertips. Yet it was a time of profound censorship and ignorance. Nearly unlimited information, soured by lies, trivial matters, and gossip. All the libraries in the world, all the information humanity had acquired, thrust upon us, and yet, rejected by many, who simply dug deeper in to their refuge, seeking solace in their own ignorance. The truth, where it was permitted, was drowned in a deluge of misinformation, lies and emptiness, devoid of any meaning. The vapid, substanceless nature of it's rot, infesting every social media company and forum with it's viciously cruel yet painfully saccharine coating. A time of great moral crusades to do evil, to cancel others, to hurt and censor, in the name of social justice, which it was anything but. To expose children to horrifying acts. To expose us all to the horrors of the world, to gore and violence and crime, despite the now unlimited access to it's beauty. To dig up the dark underbelly and ignore all that was good in the world, to take refuge in cynicism and ignorance. The deep dark bliss of hating all and never having to commit to anything, pretending one was above it all, both somehow in control of everything and yet totally helpless. To be the eternal victim, of unlimited strength to bully others. A time when abusers pretended to be victims, monsters pretended to be saints, and a time when we were never more connected around the world, and yet never more lonely. We were all anonymous, and yet had no privacy, our information public to all. Our privacy a precious asset, that we freely gave away. 

Despite being the best time in human history, with nearly unlimited food, water, and resources available by comparison to humanity's early days out in the great plains or hiding in caves, it was a time of great repression and suppression, of people, of society and the truth. A time of the greatest pleasures, and the worst of pains. It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times. How odd the paradox we lived in. The year was, 2023. How profoundly things had changed in the last century, and perhaps even more profound, how profound it was that they had stayed the same. It seemed almost inevitable that war would happen, in such peaceful times. Like crabs in a bucket, misery wanted company. This was the curse of our generation. The profound depression that was our lives, in the best time it had ever been to be alive. That what we had created had planted the seeds to destroy itself, or created the conditions by where those who never truly had to suffer did not know what real suffering was, and thus by mistake had recreated it. The more we had, the less we seemed we could enjoy it. We would have to learn, from those unhappy times, those desperate times, when very civilizations stood to be destroyed by war or a bad winter, ironically, how to be happy. It was a tremendous irony that our own lack of contentness with how good we had it, was destroying us. 

Democrats and the Moral panics; It actually wasn't the right-wing trying to ban video games or engaged in most moral panics in the 90's

 Democrats and the Moral panics

Much ado has been made of the moral panics of the 80's and 90's, most of them exaggerated. They generally were not as large or widespread as many believe, and the fact they exist as a comparison to a more reasonable position an ordinary person would hold by itself is proof of this. Moral panics are not always a bad thing and can easily lead to good results, however in some cases they clearly went overboard even when good intentions were present. They took many forms and had many different humorous and often publicly debated outcomes. What is particularly startling and has been concerning to me as of late, however, is the revisionist history surrounding these moral panics, that seem to have penetrated the public consciousness so well most people actually feel as if they remember pivotal events that never occurred. For example, a common sentiment is that either nearly everyone in society partook in them back in the day, despite few believing in it at the time aside from Fringe cults, or that certain groups are given blame that has almost no association with them, such as an entire Church or entire political wings. None is so dramatic in this association than the supposed "Christian Right-Wing", which apparently wanted to do everything from ban video games, Dungeons and Dragons, Hollywood movies, any form of Sex, or Guns, or contradictingly wanted to legalize all guns, partook in weird sex cults, and wanted to harm our children with vile depictions of violence. Most people, even the Conservatives themselves, often times make the claim that the Conservatives of the 90's, frequently referred to as Neocons, wanted to "ban everything", or at least everything they didn't approve of. 

However, these particular issues are falsely blamed on the right-wing, who objectively in congress and in states voted against their censure or banning, while the Democrats supported them, and generally left-wing parties around the world. Kamala Harris for example lost the famous supreme court case revolving around laws that tried to place restrictions on violent video games in California, and served as as landmark supreme court case, a case she lost while serving as Attorney general of California and acted upon California's wishes. The entire state of California voted for these laws, a predominately democrat state with predominately democrat legislators, and yet many believe it was Republicans who wanted to ban video games. If congressional records are checked it becomes clear Republicans overwhelmingly voted against banning violent video games or media with guns such as in hollywood movies, while the Democrats voted in favor of it. Many will claim that Fox news amplified messages to ban video games during the 1993-1994 hearings to regulate violent video games, however they would not exist until 1996. In fact many claim to have specifically heard right-wing politicians or church leaders claiming they wanted to ban video games, however most while "Definitely certain" on these memories, cannot recall a single particular detail about them, or which individual was even involved, they only feel they "know" that this "certainly" happened. The 1993-1994 hearings were lead by Senator Lieberman (Al Gore's Vice presidential pick for the upcoming election), and Herb Kohl (Another democrat who was the richest man to ever serve in the senate and a proponent of big business), and resulted in very little actual government action, despite attempts to do so by the democrats at the time, including Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (Bill Clinton who was the president with Al Gore as his vice president, the two most powerful democrats in office at the time), Hillary clinton who would go on in the early 2000's to try to ban guns and video games with Liebermen, again. In almost every subsequent attempt to regulate video games to date, it almost always has been by the left, even worldwide, with the same hearings often being tied to other English speaking countries such as Canada or the UK where international laws were attempted to be created but also failed. 

Yet if asked, almost every person will claim that it was the right-wing who wanted to ban video games and everything else, including from the right-wing. In fact, many claim to have hyper-specific memories of these events, that they can never recall and have no details of, that they aggressively insist are true. Why? For the most part, these were political concepts that were retroactively engineered and emplaced in to the heads of the general public, who unknowingly and passively absorbed ideas that would suit a political narrative by many in the media. Without any kind of counterbalance or contradiction, often because the ideas were subtly implied, and the fact the media is only 7% Republican, it quickly became "fact" in the public mind, despite being so easily disprovable. Many even formed fake memories of themselves witnessing rightwing figures calling for the ban, despite no major event like this ever occurring. The confusion of the events and vague recollections was mixed with false information, a phenomena common in eyewitnesses of crimes or UFO's, who claim they are certain they remember something that is only jarred out of their memory by seeing a photo or video of the event directly. Investigators are careful not to implant ideas in to victims heads when they are being interviewed as, by the mere power of suggestion, these people can invent these scenarios in their head, and truly believe they are real, despite provably never having taken place (such as proven by video cameras). People may remember that their victimizers were larger in number (I.E. one attacker becomes four), had different skin and hair colors, had different ages, and were even different genders, going so far as to plug movie characters in to these positions with the same faces and attire, or even believing aliens abducted them instead of kidnappers. Memory associations are formed that even victims of crime who's testimony could lead to the arrest of people, simply cannot shake. While this is more frequent in people during traumatic events to rewrite memories in this way, it can occur to anyone and everyone, and I believe disturbingly millions of people have been mislead in this way, perhaps deliberately, to sell a particular political narrative. The implications of this are staggering, but the mass formation of false memories is both intriguing, and important to pinpoint and explain far larger problems facing our society today. Combatting public myths is important to change peoples minds politically, and the implications of political decisions being made for an entire country based solely on myths that could prove disastrous could be staggering. 

Violent Video games

There are a few landmark supreme court decisions and congressional decisions that deal explicitly with video games, usually overlapping with crime bills and attempts to regulate hollywood as well, however these virtually all were proposed predominately by and voted in favor of by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans. 

Some will then go on to claim, that, while Republican politicians in office may have voted overwhelmingly against banning video games, 

Satanic Panic

Mandela effect and memory manipulation

A primary purpose of this article is to discuss directly the effects of memory manipulation and mass formation of false beliefs or even mass pyschosis, however the precursor is necessary to concretely prove that everyone imagined Fox news hosts or Conservatives wanting to ban video games and other things. [...] What makes the Mendela effect so compelling for my argument and particular views and relevant to the discussion, is not merely that many people assumed that Mendela was dead, but that political figures milked his death and claimed to have been at their funeral in numerous 

So what happened when they were exposed as the obvious liars they were? They doubled down. Not a single one lost election. And so in the public consciousness, millions, if not perhaps even billions were lead to believe an obvious lie to save face, and the memories of millions were distorted in live action merely to serve a political narrative. If such false memories could be instilled in to the minds of millions with such rapid ease, what other ideas could these people implant in to the heads of the populace, ingrained in to the public consciousness, that could just as easily manipulate them? I contend these are not the only and last times these events have happened, in fact I can think of dozens of examples too long to list, that serve as pillars or cornerstones of people's views, that are completely fabricated. 

Eyewitness testimony 

Some various myths

WMD's in iraq, millions killed in afghanistan, Rosa parks was a plant and staged, parties switching, Clarifying public statements George Bush legalizing stem cell research, George bush and hydroxychlorquine 

Biden's connections to the Russians

Biden's connections to the Russians 

In his first week in office, Biden removed most trade and oil sanctions off of Qatar, Iran, and Russia, removed the sanctions on completing the Nordstream oil pipeline, started selling our strategic oil reserves to China and Russia, forced American companies to buy Russian oil (going up to 10% of our supply at one point) and shut down the U.S.'s own domestic and allied oil pipelines, including a partnership with Canada in the keystone pipeline. As a consequence of this, gas prices soared, from a 1.30 to up to 5-7 dollars in some cases, and nearly everything in U.S. life became more expensive, as energy and in particular oil is required to transport virtually all goods in vehicles, as well as heat or cool them potentially. Russia made a tremendous profit, and nearly a year later, invaded Ukraine. This push towards reliance on Russian oil and gas, including in the U.S. but also overseas, made the EU vulnerable to Russian sanctions and was designed to put leverage on them to bend to Russia's will, which could have been alleviated in part had the U.S. sent our strategic oil reserve to Europe instead of to China or Russia, let alone right before a major war. Roughly 45% of Europe's gas and oil comes from Russia, and it is close to 100% in some countries, meaning they would likely freeze in the winter or suffer massive civilian losses should they choose to continue sanctioning Russia or helping Ukraine. 

This decisions are inexplicable, and Republican attempts to ban sending our strategic oil reserves to China and Russia were blocked by not only Biden, but the entire democrat party, who almost unanimously voted to keep sending it overseas even after a war had broken out. Further, Biden blocked attempts to stop buying Russian oil even while selling our reserves, and even tried to increase reliance on oil from Venezuela and Qatar, both Russian allies, as well as a failed attempt at Saudi Arabia who is not explicitly a Russian ally, but nonetheless is not sending large volumes of oil to Europe. The mere removal of oil from these international sources instead of producing it ourselves means Europe will be without their oil, which is closer in proximity and therefore easier to provide in large volumes over pipelines. He withdrew American troops from Ukraine on February 12th, twelve days before Russia would invade on February 24th despite the intelligence communities warning of an impending war, allowed for an oil pipeline to bypass Ukraine entirely to not be dependent on Ukraine to send oil to Europe, and blocked equipment from going to Ukraine while in office, both in 2014 during the Crimean invasion and again in 2022, when he was in office both times. Despite the political unpopularity of this, he continued, even after angering his own voting base and foreign countries. 

A simple question, is, why? What possible motive could Biden have other than an attempt to help out the Russians? It is well known he has financial ties to Russia, and an ideological view in favor of the Russians, but was he willing to sabotage his own and other countries for their benefit? At the same time, when the war in Ukraine broke out, he blocked long range missile systems including the HIMARS system, aircraft, tanks, and IFV's from going to Ukraine, which were and are seen as crucial for winning the war, and simultaneously blocked further aid from being sent, once again for no reason against the will of over 90% of the american public, if we account for congress's voting approval. Bipartisan approval like this for any bill is rare, and it is shocking to see the president illegally block aid for no clearly explainable reason. Months after the war had started, which was predicted to be lost in under three days given how dire the circumstances were, Biden finally relented, sending watered down HIMARS systems to Ukraine without long range capabilities, a clear slap in the face to the Ukranians. To show you the importance of these systems, with just four HIMARS systems delivered from the UK, Ukraine managed to cut Russian artillery bombardment down to just 1/4 the level, or from X number of shells a day to X. This doesn't just mean defeating the Russians in battle, of which immediately after this the Ukrainians were capable of doing a counter offensive. It means saving lives, as Russia has shelled entire cities to rubble, killing 10's of thousands of people in the war. Every day artillery keeps shelling Ukraine, more civilians die, more Ukranian soldiers die, and Ukraine gets closer to losing a war with an adversary who openly states via Pravda news, a state owned news agency of Russia (better known as a propaganda outlet), their goal is to "De-ukranize Ukraine", or to remove 1/3rd of the Ukrainian population. A genocide not seen on this scale from the Russians since the similiar Holomodor in Ukraine, in the 1930's, which killed nearly 10 million people. 

Understanding the gravity of the situation and what is on the table, with numerous mass graves being found of largely civilians in areas the Russians captured but were later liberated, such as the Bucha massacre, why would Biden delay for nearly 8-10 months sending hardly anything other than a tiny amount of inconsequential weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves? Sending these weapons to Ukraine cost the U.S. tax payers nothing as they are already paid for, and largely in unused stockpiles, that's only existing purpose would to be used in case of a Russian invasion to thin out Russian forces (which they're being used for, now), and all of congress and the international community is behind supporting them being sent to Ukraine. So why be the sole individual to block it, and then give no explanation and refuse to take questions from the media? Considering his financial ties to Russia and corruption in Ukraine, outed by Ukrainian President Zelenskey himself, largely seen as a hero in this war, it's hard to believe this is some kind of mistake. I hardly believe in laser-guided coincidences as it is, that manage to fail with such spectacular precision, however leaks of the Biden family's financial transactions both through court documents and his labtop, and leaked phone calls, have revealed much of Biden's financial connections to Russia and Russians who were illegally operating in Ukraine, that he helped to support. Further, his prior actions in Afghanistan show an eerily similiar trend, where he helps out the Russian-backed Taliban (of which Russia stores all their gold and supplied all their weapons), again, against all of his military and intelligence advisors advice, and with no obvious reason given, once again committing several illegal acts by doing so, many of which have now been successfully disputed in court. Sadly while the Biden administration may suffer lawsuits, Biden himself will likely never see time in prison, at least not any time soon for these actions, but we can understand what has happened and the damage it has caused. 

Biden's connections to the Russians 

Biden has a long standing ideological support for the Russians. He gave numerous speeches in congress praising and supporting them, and said they were "not out to eat our lunch", the same with China, intending to indicate that they were not a threat. In 1992, Biden wrote an article called "How I learned to love the New World Order", where he praises China and Russia, and demands a larger influence of them in the United Nations, a shrinking of the U.S. military weapons procurement and budget, and calls them a "Maverick" of weapons trafficking, suggesting it's a good thing they are arming America's enemy and that we should shrink from the world stage and let China and Russia handle things. He is also a socialist who has called for nationalizing America's oil supply, like Russia has done, among other similiar actions, with a considerable overlap in beliefs. 

While these are open statements that can be easily fact checked and proven, what has been less well known is his own personal financial connections to the Russians. Granted, ideological favoritism towards Russia and against Ukraine is likely a bigger influence on his views, but financial connections prove illicit and licit deals with the Russians, 

If Ukraine Joins NATO, Putin would likely back down (and there won't be nuclear war)

 If Ukraine Joins NATO, Putin would likely back down (and there won't be nuclear war)

 If Ukraine Joins NATO, Putin would likely back down, and there likely won't be nuclear war. Russia has never shown a propensity to want to die in a nuclear Armageddon, and withdrew nukes from Cuba during the cold war and apologized over sending bomber aircraft to the U.S., out of fear of retaliation from the U.S. Despite all the bluster, Russia has historically been terrified of nuclear war, and while willing to send endless amounts of soldiers to the meat grinder in a horrific way just like WWII, I doubt they're willing to risk nuclear war. On the other hand Putin is surrounded only be yes men, likely believes Russia could survive a nuclear war given drills where more than 40% of the population went in to underground shelters, and nuclear protocol has changed in Russia justifying the use of nuclear weapons to deter conventional as well as nuclear attacks, meaning Russia might use nukes even if nukes are not used against them and as a preemptive first strike or retaliation. We're likely closer to nuclear war than any time in human history as Putin is a mad man, aging and likely with dementia, who is at this point more unpredictable than he was in the past. Putin was no saint, looking at the 10's of thousands dead in Chechnya, Moldova, and Georgia, and looking at Syria, Kazastkan, and their arming of Hezbollah and the Taliban. However, he also was always seen as a cold, rational, calculating individual who made strategic and not personal decisions. Ukraine seems to be involved in deeply personal feelings, and represents the loss of the soviet union, something they refuse to give up.

Despite all of this, I'm doubtful Russia would really risk nuclear war, if only his advisors stopping him. Most likely, Russia and Putin aren't really willing to risk nuclear war, and if Ukraine joined NATO likely would back down. Russia invaded Ukraine before it could join NATO, and has never invaded Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia, all former soviet states that border Russia and joined NATO. Furthermore America itself borders Russia with Alaska, and Russia has never actually invaded in the U.S. Both Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO and are known NATO allies and border Russia, making up a larger surface area than Ukraine does. Russia has always demanded that none of these countries join NATO, but this is due to their fear of 

Republicans do Welfare better - The leftwing very expensive poverty

Republicans do Welfare better

One has to ask, if liberal welfare policies work, why don't they? Why haven't they? If they worked, why are Democrat areas worse off by every available metric, and Republicans better by virtually all of them?

Judge Democrat and Republican areas, states and cities, by almost any metric. Crime, poverty, homelessness, murder rates, access to healthcare, graduation rates and grade point averages, even health outcomes. It's literally almost impossible to find anything the Democrats or left-wing parties are better at in the U.S., and even in most countries overseas. [1] If you look at the top 30 cities for violent crime and murder in the U.S., 27 are Democrat, and Republicans have cities with comparable population sizes and densities without this level of crime. [1][2][3]  Republican Mayor Rudi Giuliani ran New York, a traditionally democrat city, and crime was cut in half during this period, and went back up under Democrat rule later on. Out of the top 10 states for homelessness, 9 have democrat Governors. In Baltimore, the city has one of the highest amounts of spending per capita for any student in the world, and despite this, they have one of the lowest graduation rates and highest failure rates in the country for education; more than half of Baltimore schools have zero students reaching grade level for math or reading. California has spent more than 100,000 dollars per year per homeless person, enough to literally buy them all houses, and homeless has increased by 1.5 times the amount since these programs were enacted. These states and cities have paid exorbitant, massive tax rates, several times that of other states, to actually make the problem worse. It's hard to find a single success story for any democrat area adopting these policies. 

Despite insisting constantly, endlessly, gratingly, in their ceaseless screeching that they have the one true solution to all our problems with yet another useless liberal welfare program, liberal welfare programs obviously fail by almost any observable metric. This is despite paying exorbitantly high tax rates in all these cities for the supposed benefits of the government policing you for walking down the street (stop and frisk), eating salt, having certain colors of cars or certain type of Styrofoam, or even certain sized sodas, all actual laws in New York and Democrat cities. This was even before mask mandates and shutting down all small businesses, synagogues, and churches, while allowing big corporations to stay open, the party that pretends to be against big business (despite receiving the most corporate funding and open support from companies which ban Republicans off their platform, such as Donald Trump). Despite all this, they then release almost all the violent criminals by emptying out the prisons, all the while policing the very air you breathe, literally even regulating how you can breathe which used to be a joke among Republicans (mask mandates), don't let you own a gun or simply walk down the street unaccosted, or even park your car (meters), while doing nothing or even assisting actual violent criminals. Prosecution rates for violent criminals in some Democrat cities is down from 85%, to just 15% in just a few years time. At the same time, violent crime and homicides have more than doubled in many cases. 40% of cities in America have stopped reporting crime rates all together; 75% of New York Cities district do not even report crime at all, giving an artificial appearance as if crime is dropping to 1/4 it's actual levels. 

Despite all you pay, the government wastes the money policing you and normal human behavior, and does nothing to stop crime, lower homelessness, or alleviate poverty. You pay more for less. It's in effect, very expensive poverty. You pay more to live in a miserable place like the Bronx, LA or even New York, and have horrible conditions to deal with. You can pump nearly endless money in to these programs and get even worse results as the systems, the programs themselves, are simply ran poorly. It's not about more money, more money, more money. The left has sold many of the American people that more spending is equal to more compassion, that them spending your tax money is somehow compassionate (giving you back your own money), but in reality those that can do more for less are the one's who can alleviate your problems. While not being seen "as sexy" to do something like explain the Laffer Curve or marginal tax rate issues, or to talk about helping the economy or refining tax spending, it produces real, legitimate real world results for the average person that actually helps them in their every day lives. While Banal, you don't need a flashy or insane program with some fancy new idea, but something that simply reflects common sense, practical, grounded ideas that have already been around for a while. Ideas proven, in the real world, and not some liberal dream world to actually work. The Baltimore school district for example spends far more than the national average on education, among the highest spending per student of any city in America, and has the literal worst gradepoint averages and graduation rates in the entire country, with half the schools having all the kids there not at grade level for math or reading. The endless, bottomless, blackhole spending ends up with literally the worst results in the country by the metrics, as most of the money is funneled to useless pet programs or teacher's unions, which ends up largely in Democrat reelection campaigns or is simply wasted (in one instance, teacher's unions received 11 billion dollars in government funding, and yet 10 billion of that went to Democrats. Yes literally 90% of the funding to teacher union's went to Democrat reelection campaigns, they were even sued). 

When Republicans say they want the government out of things, what they mean is to put an end to the forms of government interference that actually makes things worse, such as useless liberal welfare programs that actually seem to always make the problem worse. Republicans are generally not anarchists who are against the existence of the state, and generally tend to be pro-police and military for example (while the left calls them racist fascists), as well as have in the past expanded medicare and medicade as well as created various government welfare programs, such as the PEPFAR program which put an end to the AID's pandemic under Bush and is credited to have done so internationally, largely by using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, or Medicare D a program by Bush to pay for prescription medication. Republicans simply create less for more; a more efficient program that spends less to get better results. The left also uses problems they create with their programs to justify more of their ridiculous program, largely aimed at targeting you and blaming you for all the problem they create. For example, they left will get rid of or defund police in their cities, and when crime goes up, rather than bringing the police back, they insist they need to disarm you and take more of your rights via gun control, which just leaves you disarmed and not criminals who still have guns and will continue to get guns by breaking the law (buying home made or smuggled guns off the black market, which can be accessed by the internet). The Democrats claim your freedom of speech might to lead to violence, after all your words could provoke someone, and your ability to own a gun might lead to violence (despite hundreds of millions of gun owners, and tens of thousands of murders, literally 0.01% of legal gun owners being violent criminals or less), therefore we need to take away your speech and your guns, but nevermind the actual rapists and murderers we just let out of prison, and all the cops we just defunded. The problem according to them, is YOU, not their terrible policies that lead to this nightmare scenario of endless riots and gang warfare. 

And does crime ever go down in liberal cities when they ban guns, raise taxes, and restrict your freedoms? One has to ask, if liberal welfare policies work, why don't they? Why haven't they? If they worked, why are Democrat areas worse off by every available metric, and Republicans better by virtually all of them? Is it black magic, completely 100% random, some kind of insane fluke for the last 70 years? Or, is it less magical and insane, and simply a matter of bad policies the democrats won't take responsibility for. It gets tiring, after a while, hearing the left screech about compassion, when they've done nothing but run their cities down in to the ground, often times literally burning them down to the ground in riots. In the 30's, democrats claimed the problem was black people causing all the crime, but couldn't explain why Republican areas with more black people didn't have as much crime as their cities. In the 70's, democrats claimed it was a lack of regulations on guns and speech, but still couldn't explain why crime was only centered in their areas. Since the 90's they've reversed things and claimed actually it's the police who are secretly all racist and not them, but once again, can't explain why it's only their cities and states with the problems and high crime. Why don't our Republican areas have the same problem, if we are supposedly the more racist-er one's, and it's all the secret racist police's problems? Every time they demand we impose a federal solution to change the entire country to their whims, to reflect their cities and their frequently insane or absurd policies, despite their cities having objectively the worst outcomes and their policies having shown a continuous record of failures. 

Despite their continuous string of failures for the last 70 years and total 180 degree flip on some political positions (which they insist Republicans and Democrats "switched", another dubious claim), they still blame Republicans for all their problems, and still have never taken responsibility for their failures, thus leading to the problems in these places never being fixed. How could it possibly be Republicans and a random Republican town 1500 miles away causing all the problems in democrat cities, when we don't have the same problem here? Apparently, secret racists or evil guns waddle out of the gunsafes of republican gun owners 1500 miles away from Texas or some other red state and gun down unarmed black youths every night, with it never possibly being the problem of their own failed policies. If they could admit the problem and then actually accept what was necessary to fix things, this would change, but it's Anathema to what being a democrat is. What would be the point of them if they all essentially became Republicans? Instead they lie, deride, and attack Republicans, smearing them as having a lack of compassion, being evil, being terroristic, and even racist, despite Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, freeing the slaves, and Republicans passing most civil rights bills even as far as the 90's, of which Democrats such as Biden and Kamala harris have tried to repeal racial protections for hiring in the civil rights bill as late as 2023 (no seriously, read their proposed amendment, it wants to remove race as a protected category so you can choose not to hire black people). Democrats insist we are and have done every evil under the sun, ironically every evil that they have done in the past including making the KKK and slavery, and rather than winning by merit, they win by lying about their opponents. Despite all this bluster, just stop for a moment and think about how democrats have improved your city, or state, if in any way possible. Even at the federal level, under Biden's gas and economic policies, gas has more than tripled in price, inflation has gone up by 20-40%, the cost of everything including housing is skyrocketing, and you're taxes have gone up; you're essentially paying more for less. It's very expensive poverty, where you pay more in Taxes, and it actually makes things worse. Consider that, maybe, just maybe, their politics just don't work, and may even make things worse. In some cases, even deliberately. Consider, that maybe Republicans simply do welfare better. 

Corruption and incompetence 

It's not very probable that everything the left does wrong is on purpose, given that mistakes are human, and the left doesn't seem to be all that smart. When bumbling and jumbling sentences together, it's hard to even know what Biden is really trying to achieve, or if "Trunadafannananapressure", or "Badakafcare" is really an important part of their infrastructure plan. Doubtless there is a large degree of incompetence and stupidity on their side. However, it's also difficult to believe this is all a part of a laser guided coincidence that all happened by mistake; too much of it is systematically coordinated, has been argued for, for more than 70 years despite it's history of failure, and seems to make democrats and their allies rich, and give them more power. Corruption is a big part of the problem; if you waste welfare funding, let's say millions of dollars for homeless shelters go to democrat-owned hotels instead (this actually happened in LA), it's inevitable the problem never gets solved. If 90% of school funding goes to teacher's unions that then give it directly back to democrats to get reelected to give themselves even more money (this happened in Baltimore), then why do we act surprised when the most highly funded schools in America are actually just a money laundering scheme for democrats, and it's the students themselves who suffer from it? By failing, the left creates a problem, and then demands more funding to solve it. There's more homelessness, we more more money, there's worse student grade averages, we need more money. And where does that money go? To homeless shelters and students? Of course not, straight to their own pockets through malicious programs. If they can create a problem, they can sell themselves as the solution, make it worse, and then destroy things even further. The more homeless people there are, the more funding they get, and the more funding they can then misuse to the same programs that are never intended to solve the problem. 

It's hard to believe that democrats own the hotels getting the billions of dollars from the anti-homelessness programs, and then when they kick out all the homeless people and just use the money for themselves, that it was all a "big mistake". No, it seems like there is deliberate malicious corruption on the part of those in office. And while it exists on both sides, the breathtaking openness of the democrats and their sheer level of depravity is not only astounding, but genuinely makes the problem worse. It's not just incompetence; the left does this on purpose. That being said, there is a failure of short term thinking among many democrats, some of which are well-meaning. For example, it's true, indeed that we have 3 times as many homeless shelters as homeless people in this country and thus we actually don't need to build more. A homeless shelters does not prevent the cause of homelessness, it's merely a band-aid solution on top of an existing problem. Even if a homeless person is sheltered, he still is homeless. The root, fundamental cause of the problem is mental illness and drug addiction, with the overwhelming majority, or over 90% of chronically homeless people, of which there are around 100,000 in the U.S. (which is to be fair less than most of Europe, 6 times lower than the UK for example), and so fixing the problem isn't about building another homeless shelter or having another canned food drive which, these are all good things, but rather in attacking the root cause of the problem. I don't mean to demean those who really have donated and put in a lot of their time at shelters or food drive programs, this is a good and moral thing and even necessary, but it is not itself a solution to homelessness. The homeless person who is given a good meal, will wander outside that night and become homeless for another day, needing to come back to get another meal the next day. This keeps them alive, which is a good thing, but does not fundamentally solve homelessness. Why is this person homeless in the first place? There's section nine housing, welfare programs, foodstamps, government loans for housing, charities, and likely family members who would take this person in. So why aren't they able to stay indoors and wander outside? It's not a lack of compassion, but usually a mental health problem on the part of the homeless person themselves. Fixing this is the key to fixing the homelessness problem, and as Republican areas tend to focus on this, the deep long-term problem and not just alleviating short-term needs, we have lower homelessness overall. 

On the face of it, it's easy to see how people could be caught up in donating more to a solution that simply never solves the underlying issue. After all we need homeless shelters, but just not too many of them. It's reasonable to see how a mistake like this might happen organically. However, consider also that as homelessness goes up, homeless programs get more funding; if these organizations can take the money and put it towards expensive hotels or other money laundering programs, they actually profit off of homelessness, and thus never have an incentive to end it. While we like to believe something like this would never happen, it is the rule, not the exception in democrat cities. We can point to cases of this happening in LA, New York, San Francisco, Portland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, and virtually any other democrat stronghold in the country. There is no incentive to end homelessness as their is big money to be made; numerous documentaries, even by democrats themselves have been made of this, but if there is an overwhelming problem of corruption, than there is no desire to fix the problem as it makes them money. It may be hard to understand why at first, but it becomes breathtakingly simple when you look at it; they simply misuse the money. They can say the reason they raised your taxes is to fight homelessness, but if they end up building a new fleet of hotels or football stadiums, you quickly realize this is a lie. Yes they may say it's for one thing, but if they end up spending it on another, isn't it weird they never talk about it afterwards? Much of the media is literally directly owned by the Democrats, such as Bloomberg News which is owned by the former mayor of New York, Bloomberg, or the Washingtonpost which is owned by Jeff Bezos and who is in the top 5 donors to democrats, or CNN which was owned by Ted Turner who literally went duck hunting with fidel castro, a mass murdering communist, and who made CNN with the explicit intention to "show the other side of things", the socialist, mass-murdering side of things. Not every one of these people and papers are far left, or as far left and psychotic as Ted Turner, but all of them have an open and obvious bias. Therefore, even when the left is exposed, you often never hear about it, as most the major media corporations are literally owned by democrats or democrat donors, and the few remaining Republican owned or supported outlets are deliberately lied about and suppressed. Out of all the media in the U.S., only 7% is Republican, which is a staggering figure when you realize they make up half our population. You literally just almost never get to hear their side of things, and thus in your bubble may literally believe Trump is a fascist, Republicans are sekrit evil racists and so on, but curiously never actually get to hear from them. It's always someone talking about them, but never them getting to talk on CNN or the Washingtonpost or the New York times, themselves. Rumour and gossip about them wins the day. 

Some Raw metrics and explanation 

Despite how obvious the difference is, what are the metrics, the methods of gathering this information and the reason why things are the case? It's obvious when just looking at Democrat and Republican cities and States, Republican places tend to always have lower crime and homelessness, poverty and other such issues, but what is the deeper meaning as to why? First I will explain the statistics in and of themselves and what they mean exactly, and then expound deeper in to why these things are the case. 

The upcoming Global Simultaneous Default (and resulting economic crash)

The upcoming Global Simultaneous Default (and resulting economic crash)

It's no secret that with the corona virus pandemic and the resulting economic lock-downs that there are going to be severe economic repercussions. While major corporations had made record profits, small businesses are falling apart, in some cases deliberately shut down by the government (nail salons must shut down but large stores are allowed to run without impunity despite getting much more raw foot traffic and thus being more likely to spread covid-19), and the implications of this have not been fully felt yet. Small businesses are needed to buy and distribute products making corporations dependent on them for part of their wealth, and the middle class in general who has been hurt most by these shut downs is needed to purchase products from such large businesses in the first place, and thus these losses while immediately damaging to the business owning class will set in for the whole economy without their input shortly as will the loss of much of the middle class backbone of the U.S. People can only cut in to their savings or welfare checks for so long, before their lost jobs and money finally hit the economy and people stop panic buying goods and instead save what little they have left. It's likely that the government will hand out checks to people to keep this at bay, but this only furthers the inflation. Furthermore, with people fleeing to other countries, states, cities and areas, certain areas are destined to have incredible economic crashes while others have a boon. Predicting an upcoming economic crash after the corona virus pandemic is no feat of tremendous foresight, and could be seen as almost as the equivalent difficulty to hearing thunder or seeing lightning. Frankly, it's only a matter of time before something snaps. 

However, what is seldom talked about is the upcoming Global Simultaneous Default, or Defaulting to pay back loans by most major world government and the planned, albeit it poorly named, "Economic reset". Economies cannot reset, and debt cannot be erased, it can only be shifted and money stolen, money that won't exist to take from other countries after every country crashes simultaneously. In the attempts to pay this off, it is very likely China will buy out the debt to Europe, and massive levels of inflation, possibly hyper inflation, will ensue. Years before the corona virus pandemic, most European and western countries had taken out enormous loans to pay for massive welfare programs they seemingly had no intention to pay back. Either hubris or lack of concern over potential economic pitfalls, Europe allowed themselves to get in to an incredible amount of debt needlessly, a fact I covered previously in 2019, and predicted that, if combined with a major global catastrophe, could spell the economic destruction of Europe. For a brief run-down during 2019, not after the corona virus pandemic but before it, Luxembourg had nearly 7 million dollars in debt per citizen (yes, million), which was 6300% of their GDP. The Netherlands had 265,000 dollars in debt per person, at around 522% of their GDP. The UK had 127,000 dollars in debt per person, which was 313% of their GDP. Greece had 240%, Belgium 265%, Switzerland 269%, France 213%, Finland 196%, and the list goes on. The U.S., which by comparison was in the most debt it had ever been at the time, had 115% of their GDP in debt per citizen, or around 60,000 per person. 

What makes matters particularly daunting is that while the debt has been mounting in Europe, the GDP has been falling. Virtually every country in Europe has seen a fall in GDP per capita, or how much each citizen has and their resulting tax payments, and with the value of the Euro collapsing combined with it's ever increasing and expanding debt as well as nightmarish economic policies that have in 10 short years almost completely turned around some of the most successful countries in Europe, it's hard not to see the frightening potential for a rapid economic crash in Europe and the inevitable results of a European economic crash. This is not even including the yet-to-be calculated financial problems of the Corona virus after 2019. While the U.S. and UK used to have the same GDP per capita, in 10 years the UK has gone from 50,000 to about 40,000, and the U.S. from 50,000 to 60,000, giving us 50% more money than the UK. Norway has dropped from about 100,000 per citizen to 75,000 per citizen. In comparison to the dollar, the Euro has dropped in value by roughly 40% in the same time frame, which is quite a bit of inflation to have. The western world contains most of the world's wealth and income, and Europe makes more than entire continents combined, such as Africa or South America representing billions of people, or parts of Asia, making them an incredibly important economic hub. Without their presence much of the world will suffer as well, as will the U.S., and it is unlikely anyone has the money to actually bail them out. With no country large enough to do so other than likely China, who has profited in the pandemic, it is very likely Europe will become indebted to China, and thus become virtual slaves to their whims, such as social credit scores (methods to judge citizens behavior), withdrawing from military conflicts which oppose their allies, or simply being forced to suck up to China despite their obvious human rights violations. Perhaps worst of all will be the continuation of China's human right's violation and growing power over the world with few western countries willing or able to fight them in an economic crash. 

It's difficult to stress how much debt Europe is in, given it is largely first world countries that no-one can pay back the money from. When there is no-one left to borrow from, as these countries are the primary lenders, they are destined to collapse, especially if all of them begin to default simultaneously, and thus no country can back the other up. There is a loose network in the western world that allows for bail outs in a time of crisis (Iceland for example had 11 times it's GDP per capita in debt absorbed largely by the U.S. during it's financial collapse), but if too large of a country or too many fall apart at the same time, then it will become impossible to bail them all or even perhaps any of them out, at least without relying on China. Thus the term I would use is a "Global Simultaneous Default" that would crash the system, where every country defaults on repaying their loans all at once. That Europe was allowed to get themselves in to this much debt at all is incredible and fantastical, and akin to allowing an enemy army to invade, by allowing themselves to simply just print money from thin air, through incredible financial malpractices such as quantative easing or similiar programs, where the debt is simply ignored leading to what will eventually be inflation. European countries are effectively borrowing from each other without any real intention to back up the money they are borrowing. There is little from whom to borrow money from given the size of the European economy other than itself, and European countries are largely indebted to each other for money they don't have. So for example if a European country were to borrow 300% of it's GDP from another country that borrows 300% from itself, both are essentially loaning out money they don't have, and thus creating an artificial market bubble that is bound to pop. They are creating value where there is none through overloaning money, and thus as both countries are in incredible amounts of debt, both are essentially creating money for the other to use, which will eventually lead to inflation. A government that has it's entire economy's GDP worth in debt is in so much debt it likely will not ever be able to pay it back, and a government far beyond this is almost doomed for collapse especially if it's GDP is falling, thus making it virtually impossible they'll ever be able to pay it back. So, how much debt is Europe in?

Obviously in the modern year it's increased dramatically due to the Corona virus and is still changing and currently known where it will end; all governments have been deficit spending due to the lack of economic activity and need for more government welfare. The U.S.'s debt to GDP ratio has increased dramatically for example, as we spent nearly 9 trillion dollars, or half our debt out of roughly 20 trillion dollars, in a single year, the most we have spent ever in history, and proportionately perhaps even more than during WWII. This has put the U.S. in debt nearly 185% of it's GDP, or, 1.85 times more in debt than it's entire economy. It may take generations to pay this back, as even if 100% of our taxes went to paying this debt, of which we still need money to pay for government programs and still are getting in to debt, and our economy is still not back on track thus generating even less tax revenue, it would take nearly 10-12 years. Considering how much is spent each year and that we are still getting in to debt, it may take decades to still never be able to pay it back, which means defaulting, which means inflation. Back in 2017-2018 however, Europe was already in far more debt than this. 

The U.S. at the time, which by comparison still had the most debt it had ever been in, had only 115% of their GDP in debt per citizen, or around 60,000 per person. This is the amount of external debt owed to other countries and entities outside the country, and Public debt similarly is very high in these countries as well. Most European countries were at or above the U.S. pandemic levels of spending before the corona virus pandemic, in debt more than they likely ever could pay off in a lifetime. Now, it is at even higher levels, with the total figures still unknown. It's no wonder that these countries are calling for a reset, however, it is the countries and people who did not recklessly spend who will effectively have to pay for it, rather than the one's who got in to the debt in the first place. What they are going to call for is effectively mass robbery, to attempt to "reset" the debt, which is impossible, and will mean taking from others to pay for their own debt. This likely means you in some form or another, in ways that can't be avoided. Banks will collapse thus taking your money, hyper inflation will ensue thus halving the value of your money meaning even if you saved, it will be worth half or a third as much, if not less, thus effectively robbing you of your hard earned money. If your money is made to be worth less in order to pay for their debt, it's effectively the same as stealing your money, and if they halve the value of your money, they are essentially stealing half your money or more. If they default on their loans and entire industries crash and you get laid off and lose your job, you will suffer from this even if you saved and were smart and responsible in spending. If the banks start trying to repossess your home or car under the slightest of errors to crack down on people in order to pay their own debts, you will suffer even if you always made your payments on time. While it will be their fault, they will try to steal from you to pay for it, and it will be in many ways completely legal. This will result in mass robbery of the highest level, the robbery of value from an entire economy, and it will be completely legalized or done through trickery. And it will only spiral down from there. China, at some point, is likely to swoop in to try and buy off the debt of these countries they still will be unable to pay even with these draconian economy crashing measures, and thus effectively buy the loyalty of entire countries now dependent on them for their own survival, but likely only after a controlled collapse has already occurred. 

The sad truth is, there are winners and losers to inflation. Those with large amounts of assets, such as gold, land, stocks, bonds, oil, or anything which may go up in value with inflation, will actually have an increase in the relative value of their commodities, while normal ordinary citizens without large gold bars to fall back on, will see the prices of everything, from oil, to food, to cars, to housing, actually go up. This means the average citizen will have everything in their lives become more expensive, while organizations or people with large gold and land reserves, such as banks or the incredibly wealthy, will actually see an increase in how much money they have. Printing money which leads to inflation is enticing for the rich, and for whatever reason or cause it happens, it actually is good for these people, and our economic enemies who may wish to buy our products are far reduced prices relative to their own currency. Our foreign enemies such as China and the ultra-rich may profit, but most of us will see everything become more expensive. Periods of mass inflation are a rare time when the rich can effectively profit off of the suffering of the poor. This is of course not sustainable long term, which is why the Weimar Republic and others have effectively crashed, but turning on and off inflation is difficult and like playing with fire, such endeavors have a tendency to get out of control. Thus in their pursuit of endless greed, it's possible those in control of these events may quickly lose control in part due to their own hubris; in other words, we can't expect them to have a reasonable shut off valve or to respond in time to prevent a major catastrophe. 

What's more is, there didn't seem to be an end in sight or a path to pay it off, even under ideal conditions, which these are not. While the U.S. economy had improved dramatically in pre-Covid years, Europe as a whole was falling dramatically. The GDP per capita in Europe from 2008 to 2018 was falling in most countries, especially in the richest countries, and only in 2018-2019 did it improve slightly, to be completely tarnished by the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, Norway, one of the richest countries in Europe, which used to make 100,000 per person, had fallen to only 75,000 a year, marginally above the U.S. in 2018 at 65,000 a year, while the UK, once at our level of 50,000, has in the same time frame fallen to 40,000, at one point making equal money to the U.S. and then making 50% less, which is not insubstantial. While the U.S. GDP per capita at the time was roughly 65,000 per person, Spain and Italy hovered around 30,000 per person, with greece at 20,000, and even Finland, a Scandinavian country, at approximately 40,000 a year, far below switzerland or Norway which used to hover around 100,000 per person per year. Most European countries made far less money than one might perceive them as having made, being much more poorly off than they had for nearly half a century. Further, the standard of living in the U.S. was also substantially higher; studies [1] found that in the same time period, the U.S. standard of living was higher for the average person in poverty in the U.S. than the middle class in Europe, meaning it was not only raw numbers, but in how people lived as well. Goods are typically cheaper in the U.S. than Europe, with burgers, milk, gasoline and other commonly available goods being much cheaper, housing especially so (at 3-4 times lower prices for the same square feet of space), and thus not only did Americans have more money, but they got more for their money as well. 

It's no secret Greece was falling apart, but it's likely not known that Spain, Italy, France, Sweden and other were going through similiar periods of unrest. Just for comparison, to the U.S. at 65,000 a year, Slovenia, Estonia, Portugal, made around 25,000 a year, while Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Croatia made around 15,000, with Romania and Croatia at 12,000, and Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Albania 5,000 to 10,000, with Albania making just 5,000. This is in comparison to the 65,000 of the U.S., which is 13 times higher than Albania and 2-3 times higher than much of Europe. Despite the enormous amounts of debt, most of these countries had been losing money, and thus were nowhere near U.S. levels. It's not just that these countries are in debt, but that their GDP per capita was falling as well, meaning their economies were not improving and they would have no way to pay off this debt one accrued. Part of this is due to massive unemployment figures; despite "unemployment" figures being quoted as being low, real employment figures went down by about a third. Countries with nearly 50% employment dropped to 30%, including Denmark and many Scandinavian countries, and reports showed that 50-70% of people under the age of 30 in many of these countries were unemployed. Many had never held a job for the last 10 years, and not only were living off the government welfare, but were not developing job skills and becoming depressed and lethargic as a result. This problem has only gotten worse, and with the pandemic has been stretched to it's limit. When the drop in money, overspending and lack of economic involvement is considered, it was inevitable that Europe and most the western world was heading towards a financial collapse; with the absolutely devastating response to the Covid-19 pandemic, it seems like the world is headed towards a global collapse of such magnitude it's almost unfathomable to think of the consequences. It's hard not to think of a reason why so many are pushing for a "great reset" in an attempt to reset debt, and were doing so a decade prior, which is impossible to actually do in real life and would be a catastrophe in it's own right. Either the world faces an economic crisis of unimaginable proportions soon, reminiscent of the Great Depression in the U.S. or Weimar Germany in Europe, or finds some way to avoid a total collapse, but in either case we are looking a catastrophe that was long in the making and now largely unavoidable. 

Kamala Harris banned and restricted Violent Video games in California: The Democrat Agenda to Ban Videos games now and in the Early 2000's

Kamala Harris banned and restricted Violent Video games in California: The Democrat Agenda to Ban Videos games now and in the Early 2000's

There's a frequent reoccurring problem with the left-wing in the United States, and most of the western world, especially regarding the majority political parties. Policies and ideological goals of the left, and specifically the Democrats in the U.S., have been after they were proven to be immensely unpopular, had the blame shifted to the right-wing, and typically the Republicans. While Republicans were the primary one's to push for civil rights in the 60's, a myth emerged that the parties had miracously and suddenly "switched" on the issue, a figure so widely believed that approximately 80-90% of African Americans voted in favor of the democrats after the 1970's, particularly in presidential election, a trend which continues even to the modern day. Despite the 1957 civil rights being being written by Richard Nixon and the 1964 civil rights bill written with his help, the Republican party is often blamed for Jime Crowe era laws, despite being the one's to work to repeal it. There were no serious party changes for people who voted against civil rights and switched over to the Republican side, except one, Strom Thurmond, who after it was revealed he had a black son, reversed his position on civil rights and shifted party allegiance over to the Party of Civil rights. Abraham Lincoln is well known for freeing the slaves, and yet, the Republican party is branded as racist, and even Fascist by many on the left today. It's ironic the term fascist is used so widely, when the New York times themselves advocated for Hitler as far back as 1921, calling him more progressive than FDR who, and making him the first man of the year, explicitly endorsing him as the candidate, the positive media press likely helping him get to power. Despite the left endorsing him, Stalin, Mao, the Soviet union in general, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and numerous other genocidal regimes, notably Noam Chomske, an incredibly influential leader with the left, explicitly endorsing the Khmer Rouge. 

One such issue is on the topic of banning violent video games. Kamala Harris while an attorney general for California at the time, oversaw the landmark supreme court case, where she lost the ban on violent games and the supreme court overruled this, in the name of freedom of speech. The case, known as the "Edmund G. Brown, Governor of the State of California, and Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association", was a law in California which attempted to apply draconian video game restrictions, particularly in regards to violent video games. California among other democrat states tried to ban violent video games, and Leland Yee, a popular child psychologist congressmen who argued in favor of banning violent video games for the sake of children, pushed the charge on the side of the democrats in the 90's and early 2000's, with the votes in congress primary being split between partisan party lines, with Republicans largely against bans and restrictions on guns in media such as hollywood and video games, and the Democrats in favor of it. The famed child psychologist supposedly against gun violence, would later be caught being involved in gun trafficking, and confessed to these crimes after videos by the FBI revealed his involvement in them. [1][2] It's hard to overstate the importance of this, as the leading anti-gun congressmen at the time, perhaps the face of the entire movement, who was anti-gun so much so he was against their mere depictions in movies and video games, was caught illegally trafficking guns for terrorists, largely anti-tank and anti-aircraft rocket launchers, some in to the United States, for his own purposes, effectively disarming the average citizen while arming his own side and America's enemies. What's more insane is that he is now released after a mere 4 years in prison and running for political office, again. And may actually win due to the sheer ignorance of democrat voters. 

Despite Republicans taking the blame for corruption and scandals which often don't even involve crimes, and for trying to ban violent video games, it was democrats who tried largely to ban violent video games. Yet many of the youth, including people I know personally, still believe the exact opposite, even on civil rights and other issues. The importance of this is not only a moral one for restrictions on freedom of speech, but a purely logical one on knowing who to vote for. The first people to complain about the system blindly vote for people that take away all their rights, these democrat voters "Vote Blue no matter who", and fail to realize, in any way, that most of their problems are created by those who claim to fight against these problems. Quietly in the background, the people you elect are working against your own best interests, and all it took was a meme on twitter or a straight up lie on television for you to forget anything about history and create your own reality. The problem with this is you are constantly putting the people against your own stated interests in power, and fail to look in to their voting history or even simply listen to them speak.