First, great response. I wasn't expecting it. I don't dispute anything you put forward here. I am, however, very concerned with much of how Europe is allowed to bankroll their social utopias on the backs of American defense. That is real. When you look at what NATO can bring to the fight, much of what entire countries contribute amounts to a single fighter squadron - not nothing - but at the same time, we give them undue credit for what they are able to add to our collective defense. Holding them accountable for the level of insurance they get from us has been a proper political angle that Trump is correct to pressure. Inferior was harsh, but vassal is correct. Europe/Japan and much of the modern world is not what it is without pax americana. Trump is reasserting that, correctly. I do think the economy is shit. And structural forces are the only thing that matters. It's because of how the Federal reserve is intended to function as a central bank. It lends to the US government at below market rates enabling inflation as a means to an end to devalue government debt at the expense of W-2 employees. So yes, the economy sucks. I personally think it's going to suck for a very, very long time. We have a larger generation that is owed out-sized benefits from a smaller generation and working class. That is going to be painful for a very long time as productivity will be unable to match outlays. Tariffs? Eh. They're the flavor of the month and miniscule relative to the larger, structural issue inherent in the system. This could be a subject in its own right. I think we probably do agree a good deal. That said, the functioning of our academic system has become completely divorced from its original intent. Universities used to produce lots of science. Now, the government disallows research that would be fruitful whilst looking to fund programs and research that it thinks will serve as means to justify future spending that they likely already have earmarked, but just need some "study" to allow it to go forward. Don't miss the point I was making by latching onto the social science crisis example - the crisis is everywhere, but most pronounced in the social sciences. Broadly speaking, the government has corrupted what was once a good system. The fix is to remove nearly all funding from these entities and allow them to generate science that is actually profitable - i.e. solves real problems. On the subject of government science more broadly, I don't think I disagree with you; maybe we were talking about different things and I grabbed onto what I thought you were trying to say. That said, science is not stopped dead in its tracks...please. Fine then change how it works! The SAVE act is part of a much broader conversation in the country to address issues with voting. Which are numerous. Vote gathering, non-citizen voting, voting month, mail-in voting, and so on. I don't know what to tell you about this other than to say I could easily vote for numerous family members who once upon a time lived in the same state I live in, but no longer do. I still receive ballots for them and just tear them up. You don't see the issue. I do. The bottom line is if you can't be bothered to make even the slightest personal efforts to participate in democracy, then you shouldn't vote. If you need "help" voting, then someone else cares about your vote more than you do, and it shouldn't be counted, because it's really just serving someone else's ends at that point. I have no issue eliminating gerrymandering at large from the country. The court recently struck down Louisiana's racially gerrymandered map, and they'll be forced to redraw. So will others hopefully. To be clear, that podcast also makes the point that there is no sacred right to partisan gerrymandering, either. That's the Federalist saying that. A conservative powerhouse. Never said that republicans didn't do it, but theirs is generally partisan, rather than racial. Either way, its a ridiculous practice that needs to come to an end, no matter what the intent.