I have been thinking a lot recently about the progressive movement and the differences between Republicans and Democrats, especially in the longterm view of resolving many major issues of American citizens while stabilizing and aligning nations of the world to build Meso-Space-Mountain structures and resolve other great civilizational problems.

I still believe that NY-14 Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who I will refer to as AOC in the rest of this essay) will win the Democrat nomination and will win the presidency if she chooses to run, but current Secretary of State Marco Rubio could possibly edge her out if AOC does not quickly brush up on business and inter-nation issues (which I think she is capable of doing if she focuses and is not blocked by other members of the Democrat party). As of today, I will be voting for Marco Rubio for president even though I am feeling pulled towards the Democrat party for a few reasons.

If the Democrats nominate anyone other than AOC, they will lose. Alexandria has the energy and the rallying power to carry a presidential run. Young people across the country really do not trust many people in older generations, and for good reason. But, because Marco Rubio has been carrying so many odd jobs while Secretary of State in the current administration, and because he seems to constantly be cleaning up after Trump, it seems clear that he has earned trust with both Republicans and some Democrats (or at least has the ability to tap and gain that trust if it is not yet activated with some).

Because of AOC's impressive demonstrated energy, and the political issues I have learned about recently while researching indigenous history, I feel myself being drawn towards becoming a Democrat. I do not see a path for the Republicans to be able to address the massive number of cultural issues in American history that are already being addressed by Democrats. I do not know of a single recent land return to indigenous groups that happened under a Republican, but I will continue researching.

Weirdly, I now see pretty clearly that all of the discussion of reparations for American citizens who can trace their personal history to a slave can only lead to one place, which is a higher-legitimacy-acknowledgement of the present day continued terrible treatment of many indigenous or Native American tribes. Large-scale economic reparations will be very challenging to implement, and even harder to fund, but some type of land return to indigenous populations is politically tenable and achievable for a relatively small and easier-to-verify group. I think that point leads to some serious (and legitimate) anger from many in the African American communities across the US who have been strung along by Democrat politicians for too long about reparations or other handouts.

That could lead to a split where a more polished MAGA movement lead by Marco Rubio (perhaps not using the exact slogan) can gain a lot of votes in the African American community delivering real economic improvement with major business initiatives, tax breaks, and emphasis on Opportunity Zones. That would be a natural place to integrate Tim Scott in Marco's campaign, either as VP or in some other major cabinet position. I still think that JD Vance has tremendous potential as a longterm leader for the Republican party and as a longterm multi-term presidential candidate and potentially as a VP, but he will need to focus more on building political energy with behind-the-scenes business and infrastructure relationship building across various communities since he does not have the demonstrated international skillset that Marco Rubio has.

Strangely, I can see the Democrat versus Republican issues-split becoming quickly and overtly polarized purely by female and male issues, and I do not think that is a bad thing.

That may lead to more regular Republican leadership at the presidential level over the next century, because some of the most important national and inter-national dangers will demand a kind of brutal warrior edge that I don't know if most American citizens will trust a female president to maintain. That is not a critique or negative statement, but an observed reality of a tension-action-ability that is impossible to fake.

Today I can see Marco Rubio getting verbally or physically intimidating to Putin in a way that I cannot see AOC doing. More importantly, I can see Putin or Netanyahu believing a threat from Rubio in a way that each would not believe from AOC. Again, that is not a critique or a negative statement, but an observed reality of a critical factor as we work to resolve the world issues ahead of us.

That observation does not detract from the importance I see from AOC, and the fact that I think she will win if she chooses to run (and is actually enabled by the Democrat party). I see her sincerity and on-the-ground-work as representing the very best of America. She shows a spiritual energy that can connect with more Americans in a real way than what Rubio carries (or what any other potential Democrat or Republican candidate carries). I trust AOC's perspectives across a broad array of issues more than I trust Rubio, and I think most Americans will also feel that way if presented with a head-to-head debate across a large range of issues. I think that is something that Rubio needs to process, and hopefully utilize in trying to build a connection with AOC regardless of what happens in the next 2 years leading up to the next US presidential election.

AOC's biggest challenge will be learning the brutal realities of business and the history of nation-state violent political games. The Democrat party should commit early, and should have her reading every brutal history of World War II and other war books that they can find. Not as a way to push her to become exactly like those violent leaders, but as a way for her to understand that the other nation state leaders that she will deal with (if she becomes president) have brains that have been trained by consuming or living with this very violent history.

I've developed an international political strategy that can minimize inter-state large-scale warfare which could accomodate more female presidential leadership. But while we are still in an era of volume-based interstate warfare (even if it is now with more drones than ships or marching armies), I think the above observations will hold true.

So that then leads to the decision I have been feeling and mulling.

Which is what group should I belong to as father and a voting American, especially with my extensive national and global responsibilities (which also extend into the intellectual and technological and business realms)?

I think the answer right now seems to be as an extreme-at-times and moderate-at-times, family-focused-capitalism-enabling, dialogue-driving-and-pedantic-when-needed, needs-a-regular-reminder-to-canvas-and-not-just-read-books-and-comment-even-if-helpful, black-metal-MAGA-trucker-hat-wearing Democrat who sometimes votes Republican.

That space feels right. The fact that I am talking about what feels right is already more understandable to the average Democrat voter than it is to the average Republican voter (even if many Democrat voters might get upset with where my intuitions are leading). I feel more at home at a punk rock concert or a theater or a hiking trail than I do at a country club, but I also like to occasionally go to a country club. I feel more at home with a radiant, truth-telling, both-animal-spirit-and-Holy-Spirit-feeling, tribal-face-painted-indigenous-pride (of all backgrounds including Jewish tribes and African Americans who should trace themselves to tribes and not simply countries or plantations), lets-all-(including-animal-rights)-find-a-way-to-survive-together tale of America than I do about a woke-ized, mechanized, dehumanizing, remote-weapons-hunting, Daniel-Boone fighting Lawrence-of-Arabia fighting ambiguously-gfake-Obama-from-AfricAsiaOlulu-bullshit-cultural-whitewashing-and-blackwashing tale of America. Yes, I care about pronouns if someone chooses to use them, but no I will not allow you to fake them and cheapen them (and that means all the fake trans people need to quit playing dress-up or just admit to belonging to the Baphomet-cult), nor will I respect a company or country that makes it their priority to focus on pronoun changes instead of fixing real issues of running water and natural resources preservation and careful extraction.

This space is not actually new for me. In high school in the 2000s, when I began my excessive reading and learning habit, I quickly learned that many of the standard myths and narratives of America were entirely false. I went through a phase where I sincerely embraced more Democrat (at the time) positions than those of the typical Republican. I then shifted back towards more Republican policies and thinking after encountering some of the business policies of some Democrats, including higher taxation with a tolerance for low-quality operations. I have long socialized (badum-tsss) with many Democrats, most of whom were shocked when I discussed with them (but never hid) that I was not voting-at-all or that I was voting for Trump despite agreeing with many of my Democrat friends about some of their policy proposals and critiques on the major issues.

So that all leads me to a not-so-strange position that I am calling a capitalist American Democrat. Someone who leans towards enabling more explicit high-quality-government-leadership to tackle big civilizational problems, while developing a more indigenous-aware patriotism, with less corporate-dominated-hidden-vote-buying, while emphasizing secure elections and secure citizenship.

The policy issues that I care about which I think fit here:
- enablement of more skills training (employable and non-employable)
- enablement of more small-and-mid-size businesses and jobs (which likely is driven by a mix of corporate and large-scale government projects)
- indigenous rights broadly, including more representation of men and women indigenous leaders in government offices of all types; That does not mean large-scale indigenous reparations, but more recognition of rights and some land claims as a way to stabilize the current demands
- secure borders (which supports the above three points)
- no tolerance for other countries causing border issues (which includes Netanyahu's current settler terrorism bullshit in Israel)
- secure, provable and rapid elections
- more regulations and limitations on gambling
- more regulations and limitations on human and drug trafficking and gangs
- increased protections for families, and against sexual exploitation at all ages
- increased protections for spouses going through divorce, including addressing clear corruption and bad incentives in the family law court system
- medium-trending-to-low taxation (with some type of penalty system for clear reported abuses of bad government operations)
- higher-standards for government agency operations
- flatlining or reducing Department-of-War spending, with choices to do so lead by veterans who care about both real security and reductions in wars
- fighting insurance and healthcare fraud without needing to resort to a fully socialized medical system (which could reward hospital fat cats more than it helps average citizens); a medicare-for-all system may still end up happening, but it will break if it does not aggressively attack bureaucratic and corporate abuse in the government-funded system.
- prison system reform

In some ways the Democrats are the less honest right now of the two dominant parties. The Democrats claim to care about many of the above issues in some way, but in that claim they are not taking as much action as they could despite their stated awareness of important issues. Or, the solutions they are proposing will make the situation worse rather than better.

In some ways it is better to at least publicly acknowledge the real issues rather than to hide them, but acknowledgement then raises the problem of needing to take action to address the issues. And taking real action (especially complex action) results in real political cost and reputation danger.

The one hardline I will take is about Israel and Gaza. If Rubio doesn't show a pair of balls and take a more aggressive tone about fixing the settler terrorism and Palestine development issue, then I may shift my vote to AOC (or whoever else the Democrats stupidly nominate if they do not choose AOC).

But right now, assuming Rubio will stand up to Netanyahu's bullshit and help the majority of sane Israelis better stabilize their country, then my vote will go to Rubio for president, mostly because I think his current pace of fixing global tensions as Secretary of State needs to continue, but with even more responsibility. His recent speech in Greece aligns with many of my views about building an alliance of strong-but-respectful nation states, who can work together to resolve major dangers on Earth and beyond as we travel out into the solar system.

Again, to be clear, I still think that AOC will win if she chooses to run for president. And if AOC wins, that will make the international situation more complicated.

Fortunately, it seems that Xi Jinping and China are taking a much more stabilizing role globally, and that China might be able to keep-in-check any leaders that start acting stupid even while AOC is ramping up as US President (and if she doesn't ramp up her capabilities fast enough, then the US ends up back with a Republican president in 2032).

As foretold, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will not win nomination or the presidency because some of the geriatric Democratic party members care about personal identity-signaling more than actually winning and helping constituents, even though they have a capable candidate who seems ready for rapid development.

Also, an important point but less important than the real issues is that Democrat women are hotter and smarter than Republican women, which is one of the reasons I've inevitably socialized with them despite leaning to vote more Republican over the last decade. Maybe I'll marry one.