What in your upbringing led you to absorb leftist ideology without questioning? What makes you blind to seeing the end result of Marxist ideology? How many socialist and Marxist and Communist countries have you stayed in to witness the plight of their citizens. Question your political ideology.
I spent two hours and four large cups of coffee formulating this response, but I’m not confident it will matter regardless of what I say. You chose to contact me anonymously rather than as an adult willing to engage in an honest discussion or debate. Because of that, I suspect that no amount of truth will be persuasive. It appears you hate the left more than you value your country, and that mindset makes it easy to ignore the broken promises and corruption currently occurring in our government.
I was raised in a far-right household, so my views didn’t come from indoctrination, they came from questioning what was attempted to be taught to me that never felt quite right. I watched ideology used to excuse cruelty, inequality, and dishonesty, and I decided I wanted better for myself and for others. I formed my beliefs by reading widely, listening to people outside my bubble, studying history, and paying attention to real-world outcomes, not by blindly inheriting a political identity. I also removed myself from the household and moved across the country alone at the age of 16 to live with a friend and her family to get away from the poison of so called "home". I was in AP classes in high school geared towards going to college for political science with an emphasis on foreign policy before having a change of heart and getting a nursing degree due to my fear of ever traveling to the countries my education would be beneficial for after seeing the corruption as I got older and understanding it even more. I however have never stopped continuing to educate myself on it.
Wanting healthcare, dignity, equal rights, and accountability from those in power isn’t “Marxism”; it’s basic humanity. The most dangerous ideologies aren’t the ones that ask for compassion, they’re the ones that demand loyalty over truth. Today’s right-wing leadership is dominated by authoritarian tendencies, oligarchic interests, and habitual dishonesty, all while accusing others of the very failures they embody. The blending of partisan media figures, particularly from ideologically aligned outlets into governance roles reflects a collapse of the line between propaganda, commentary, and state power. You end up with governance by loyalty and optics rather than competence and institutional strength.
I value equal treatment under the law, accountability from those in power, and human dignity because those principles are foundational to a functioning republic, not because they belong to one ideology or another. At the same time, believing in equality does not mean I support open borders, nor does it preclude supporting the Second Amendment which I do and personally exercise. I am pro-choice, I support the death penalty, and I evaluate policy based on evidence, constitutional limits, and consequences, not partisan loyalty. I am not interested in being ideologically pure; I am interested in being intellectually honest.
What concerns me most in the current political climate is not disagreement over policy, but the erosion of constitutional norms: an administration that disregards constitutional constraints, undermines or ignores federal court rulings, and relies on media ecosystems to propagate demonstrably false narratives to the public. The Constitution is explicit about the separation of powers and the binding authority of the judiciary. Treating those safeguards as optional is not strength, it is institutional decay.
Using the United States military against its own citizens is not only dangerous, it is fundamentally at odds with constitutional governance. The Constitution deliberately separates civilian law enforcement from military power because the Founders understood that standing armies used domestically are a hallmark of authoritarian rule, not democracy. The military exists to defend the nation from external threats, not to police political dissent or civilian unrest.
The Posse Comitatus Act reflects this principle by restricting the use of federal armed forces in domestic law enforcement except under narrowly defined, extraordinary circumstances. Even when exceptions exist, they are meant to be limited, temporary, and restrained, not normalized or politically weaponized. Deploying the military against civilians risks eroding civil liberties, suppressing lawful protest, and collapsing the distinction between a free society and a coercive state.
History is unambiguous on this point. Governments that turn their militaries inward, whether in Weimar Germany’s final years, modern authoritarian states, or failed democracies do so when civilian institutions are weakened or when leaders prioritize control over constitutional limits. The result is not order, but fear, escalation, and the degradation of democratic legitimacy.
In a constitutional republic, disagreements are resolved through courts, elections, and civilian institutions, not through the threat of military force against the populace. Treating citizens as enemies to be subdued rather than constituents to be governed is not strength. It is a confession that democratic norms have failed, or worse, been deliberately abandoned. This is not a partisan concern. It is a constitutional red line.
The use of masked, unidentified federal agents to detain people without clearly presenting lawful authority or the basis for an arrest is profoundly dangerous in a constitutional republic. The Constitution requires due process, probable cause, and accountability. Principles that exist precisely to prevent arbitrary detention and abuse of power. When armed agents operate without visible identification, completely cover their face, refuse to immediately state who they are, and fail to produce warrants or legal justification, they undermine the rule of law they are sworn to uphold. But who are we kidding, we all know that these "ICE" agents are not all law enforcement. Nowhere in the US is there suddenly an extra 2000 agents to send to one city who are fully trained, vetted and experienced enough to do the job. There is however plenty of proud boys, January 6'ers and IDF available to help turn the country into a complete joke and put a huge target on our backs for all the allies we have turned on and fucked over.
This practice erodes one of the most fundamental protections in a free society: the ability of citizens to distinguish lawful government action from criminal activity. If individuals can be seized off the street by unidentified forces, the public has no reliable way to know whether an arrest is legitimate, mistaken, or outright unlawful. That ambiguity does not enhance security, it creates fear, confusion, and the conditions for abuse.
Historically, unaccountable policing methods are not the mark of stable democracies. Authoritarian systems rely on secrecy, anonymity, and intimidation because transparency limits their power. Democratic systems rely on visible authority, clear legal process, and accountability because legitimacy depends on consent and trust. Masked detentions without immediate proof of authority collapse that distinction.
Law enforcement does not lose legitimacy by following due process, it gains it. Producing identification, stating authority, and presenting lawful justification are not inconveniences; they are constitutional requirements. When those safeguards are discarded, the issue is no longer immigration enforcement or public safety, it is the normalization of extrajudicial detention.
A government that allows people to be taken without clear identification, explanation, or legal proof is not enforcing the law, it is eroding it. That is a line democracies cannot cross without consequences.
History shows where this leads. In Weimar Germany, democratic institutions were dismantled incrementally through attacks on courts, the press, and political opponents under the guise of combating ideological enemies. In Hungary, constitutional manipulation, judicial capture, and media consolidation were framed as nationalism while dismantling accountability. In Russia, the loss of judicial independence and normalization of state-aligned disinformation produced an oligarchic authoritarian system in which laws and elections exist largely in name only. These are not abstract comparisons; they are documented patterns.
Questioning ideology is a civic responsibility. Blindly adopting any side in its entirety without scrutiny, without limits, and without regard for constitutional boundaries is not independent thought. I am capable of deciding what is right and wrong across the political spectrum, and I base my positions on principle, evidence, and the rule of law, not on tribal loyalty or fear of dissent.
I question my beliefs constantly. That’s precisely why I don’t follow movements that rely on fear, scapegoating, or historical amnesia. Choosing empathy, evidence, and equality over dogma isn’t blindness.....it’s growth.
P.S. I did not vote for Biden so you can save that assumption and time trying to compare him to anything I've had to say. You lose complete credibility when you pull the "but what about Biden or what about Obama" bullshit. EVERY politician is corrupt in one way or another. Some just more than others. The government is corrupt all across the board. Terms limits should exist and pay and benefits should end when they retire or time out of office. They should also only receive the same health insurance options as the American people and they should not be allowed to deal in the stock market while in office.
