Tired of the Noise? Here’s What I’m Seeing in 2025
Honestly, I’ve been thinking a lot about politics lately, and I’m starting to believe that maybe we’re not more divided in 2025, maybe we’re just more awake. It feels like people are finally questioning the news instead of just trusting whatever pops up on their feed or TV. I see way more people checking multiple sources, digging for context, and asking who benefits from certain narratives. Healthy skepticism is definitely in, and blind trust is out.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that local politics are finally getting some love. Town halls are packed, and local elections are seeing big turnouts. People are realizing that what happens in their city or school board can impact their daily lives way more than the noise coming out of D.C. Plus, more regular folks, not career politicians, are stepping up to run for office because they care about their communities. It’s not flashy, but it’s real change.
And while the media still focuses on the loudest extremists, underneath all that, there’s a rise of middle-ground movements. People are tired of the drama and sick of the “my side or nothing” attitude. They’re looking for real conversations, respectful debates, and actual solutions instead of just fighting all the time. It’s slow, but it’s happening.
Younger people are also getting politically smart way earlier. They aren’t waiting until they’re “grown-ups” to get involved. They know that posting online isn’t the same as taking real action, and they’re showing up, volunteering, organizing, speaking out at meetings, running voter drives, you name it. They care about issues, not party loyalty, and they want authenticity. My party, the Republican Party, experienced a notable increase in support from young voters during the 2024 election cycle, particularly among young men. Democrats did not fare as well in the last election with the younger voters. They still won the youth vote overall, but by a much smaller margin than in 2020. In 2020, Joe Biden got about 60% of voters under 30. In 2024, Kamala Harris only got around 52% of young voters — an 8-point drop.
And thank God, social media fatigue appears to be real. More people are getting tired of the outrage cycle and choosing longer, deeper conversations instead of rage-clicking and doom-scrolling. They’re reclaiming their time and energy for stuff that actually matters.
Overall, yeah, it’s messy and chaotic sometimes, but I feel like this could be the start of something better. Not just division — actual awakening.
Curious what you guys think:
How do you feel about the state of politics in 2025?
Are you seeing any of these changes around you, too?
Do you think things are getting better, worse, or just different?I think things are changing fast. Trump went as a whirlwind through the American system. Making big changes.
Trump won basically because he was better on social media than Biden. And Harris hardly had the time to prepare herself.
But the baby boomers like Trump, Biden and Sanders are dinosaurs from a different age. They connect with the media landscape differently than generation X or the millennials.
Most young people don't watch TV any more and get their news through podcasts, TikTok or other Social Media.
These channels will have more and more influence on campaigns. CNN and Fox will have an influence on 50+ people. But there is a huge voter segment that will get their opinions in different ways.
The next election in 2026 will show this change. As I think the political landscape will be constantly changing and I think that it will be incredible difficult for a sitting president to win a second term. 4 years will be the max.
With the consequences of politics being short term decision making. (which is basically disastrous)
Also AI will have a role in the electoral campaign with targeted ads using personal data and social media algorithms adjusted to political preferences. (People who like Trump will get more Trump, people who like Sanders will get more Sanders...)
Bottom line. Things will change fast.Totally agree—things are shifting fast, and the way people consume information is driving that change more than ever. Social media, short attention spans, and now AI are transforming campaigns into something unrecognizable from even a decade ago. The days of old-school media dominance are fading, and that’s going to make elections way more unpredictable going forward. Thanks for responding to my comment, really appreciate your thoughtful take. You’re spot on that we’re headed into a new era of politics.
-How do you feel about the state of politics in 2025?
Politics in 2025 are an ongoing and worsening set of symptoms born from the hard push of identity ideology as a centerpiece in '08-'09. The root of it all being what I think is the death of individual cultures, and this being brought about by what many see as misguided empathy pushing for diversity at any cost. People are tired of feeling like no matter what they do, where they go, who they vote for, it all just leads to the same elite favoritism that costs us our mental, physical, and financial health.
Extremism among the youth is increasing and polarizing to both the far left and right. Young women for the first time in history have polled as being majority left, while the young male demographic for the first time in history are polling disproportionate majority right. This is fueling movements centering around the male loneliness epidemic, MGTOW, fourth wave feminism, social acceptance of misandry/misogyny, racial identity extremism like the social movement of BLM, and so much more that listing it would generate a series of novels.
Expect to see a hard paradigm shift in the next decade with a focus on rearranging the masculine/feminine role dynamic back toward the traditional, and also more extremism directed toward the wealthy if we do not begin a war that requires a draft. Income to inflation inequality is at the forefront of the minds of the underprivileged, and a solution growing in popularity is decreasing the amount of females in the workforce and promoting young family dynamics.
We are in for a fascinating future, that's for certain.
-Are you seeing any of these changes around you, too?
No, I don't see any of the positive changes that you have seen. That may be due to the geographic/demographics in which we reside, but extremism and violent ideation is increasing and becoming more tangible in action the more time that passes. Ideology hunters are ever-increasing in numbers, covert race wars are becoming commonplace in workplaces and on the streets, and extremist action seems to be the only way to get true recognition for movements these days.
On college campuses we are seeing more of the right stand front and center, and more young males fall to the right while females are taking a hard turn to the left. I'm concerned that if the propaganda doesn't take a harder lean into traditionalism, we will witness the same ideological and social androgyny that came prior to the fall of Rome and the many other dead empires of the world.
However, I will say that Trump's actions have provided me better avenues with which to combat the covert extremism I face in my workplace. It's still taboo to be white and discuss racial tension publicly where those of non-white orientations may do so without walking on eggshells. The avenues for racial/gender discrimination are shifting, and I'll take that small win.
-Do you think things are getting better, worse, or just different?
I'm not confident enough to say whether things are getting better or worse, but I will say that I am not confident that we aren't just swapping one pig with makeup for another. No matter the pig we choose, it seems the outcome is always the same: The elites dictate everything, their mandates favor the elite, and the best we can do is operate within their established boundaries.
Authoritarianism seems to be the mindset on both sides. The future leaders they're trotting out for us seem to think that fluidity weakens their stances. I see no true change in course for the USA, and I believe we will see something akin to a dominant world government or WWIII in my lifetime, perhaps one will lead to the other. China will be the hegemony of the new world we are watching form if we don't wipe ourselves off of the face of the planet prior to these developments, but the USA will compete heavily by falling in to silent isolation and focusing on education and industrial infrastructure just as China did prior.
If all bodes well, we will see the American dream become more than a dead notion of the past via UBI initiatives. I hope to see the middle class grow once more. I want to see birthrates among my people rise to at least 1.5, and more media representations of my people so that our future is promoted in a healthy way.This is one of the most articulate and perceptive breakdowns of our current moment I’ve read in a long time. I share your view that what we’re seeing isn’t just a political shift, it’s a cultural reckoning with the consequences of decades of unchecked ideological overreach. You’re right to point to 2008–2009 as a turning point, when what began as a movement for equity turned into an imposed conformity that sacrificed nuance for identity absolutism.
I’d add that much of today’s unrest comes from an absence of shared meaning. In dismantling tradition without offering anything equally coherent in its place, society has left many, especially the young, adrift. We're raising generations with no unifying mythology, no common goal beyond the vague pursuit of “progress,” which increasingly just means dismantling whatever came before. It’s no surprise people are retreating to tribal ideologies, be it radical gender theory, neo-reactionary politics, or hardline nationalism. These at least offer a sense of certainty.
I also agree that the reaction to this vacuum may eventually include a revival of traditional masculine/feminine dynamics, not out of nostalgia, but out of necessity. Human nature doesn’t yield easily to social experimentation, and when systems fray, people instinctively reach for the familiar structures that once held civilizations together.
Like you, I’m not optimistic about short-term fixes. The machine seems to regenerate itself no matter who’s in charge. But I do believe clarity is emerging, painful though it is. People are beginning to see through the illusion that our politics are still left vs. right. It’s now top vs. bottom, order vs. chaos, meaning vs. entropy. The lines are being redrawn, and maybe—just maybe—that that's the necessary discomfort before something healthier takes root."The lines are being redrawn, and maybe—just maybe—that that's the necessary discomfort before something healthier takes root."
This is the notion that scholars the world over are debating. It is often referred to as, "a collective consciousness of the apocalyptic mindset."
Of course, apocalypse meaning what could be a violent reformation. That same violent reformation we have seen time and time again throughout history.
I don't want to see it come to pass, but I don't see the social paradigm doing anything to steer away from it. Life is looking more and more like the rat city experiments. Look into, "behavioral sink," if you want the relevant study.Your view strikes a deep chord, and I agree that we're standing on the edge of a profound societal shift. The idea of an impending "apocalyptic mindset" isn't just philosophical, but increasingly feels like a palpable tension in the air, where the very fabric of our social, political, and cultural systems is being tested.
The "behavioral sink" you mention is a striking metaphor for what we may be witnessing. It speaks to the human tendency to spiral into chaos when confined within unhealthy, overcrowded environments, whether literal or metaphorical. We've seen this before in history, and we can feel it now, as social division, mistrust, and frustration reach new heights. The more we attempt to control or manage these tensions through force or legislation, the more we risk triggering a breakdown rather than a breakthrough. The rat city experiment offers an unsettling reflection of how societal pressure can push us into patterns of self-destruction when meaningful connections and true leadership are absent.
But, as you said, these "necessary discomforts" could very well be the precursor to something more grounded and sustainable, though it might take a painful reordering before healthier roots can take hold. And perhaps, the chaos we fear is an unavoidable part of this process, just as the night is darkest before dawn. If there is hope, it lies in the collective willingness to wake up from this self-destructive spiral and reimagine what true unity and purpose might look like in the midst of all the disruption.
As unsettling as it is to entertain the notion of violent reformation, maybe it's precisely this deep discomfort that will push us toward the clarity we need to rebuild from the ground up, more resilient and aware of the fragile nature of the systems we have long taken for grantedThey say any real change takes thirty years to implement:
-10 years for social introduction
-10 years for legal development, implementation, and adjustment
-10 years for enforcement acceptance
What do you think the change, from your observations, would realistically look like?
For me it's a shift toward a world government, or WWIII to detract efforts from domestic unrest and then subsequently the merging of a world government entity. They already push acceptance of Chinese ethics and morals in corporate America, so I expect a return to nationalism for a time as well.That's a fascinating framework, the 30-year cycle makes a lot of sense when you think about how deeply change has to root itself in both systems and culture before it truly sticks. Your observation about a potential move toward global governance is provocative, especially in light of growing global interdependence, tech-driven centralization, and the erosion of clear national boundaries in digital, economic, and even ideological spaces.
At the same time, it’s interesting how resistance often rises in parallel. Hence, the potential return to nationalism you mentioned. Maybe what we’re seeing is less a march toward one outcome and more of a pendulum effect: globalization accelerates, and nationalism intensifies in response. Perhaps true “change” over 30 years isn’t just about moving toward a single endpoint like world government, but about the system adapting to the tension between competing forces, global integration vs. sovereign identity.
Food for thought: What if the real change isn't structural, but psychological, a shift in how people define belonging, loyalty, and truth in an age when borders are less physical and more digital, and when AI, corporations, and supranational powers have more influence over daily life than governments ever did?I believe we are approaching the end of the first decade of social introduction, and we are about to enter the decade of legal development, implementation, and adjustment. Anymore psychological restructuring would seem to only further fan the flames of tangible extremism. I believe this is no more apparent than in the open discussions politicians are having about doubling down on their policies and stances as opposed to altering course, and that alone tells me they're vying for the control of phase two. They've instilled a lost, hopeless, "apocalyptic", mentality, and now all they have to do is reveal their hero to guide everyone back to what they see as the light.
As for digital borders, I don't really see any outside of the iron curtains of the CCP and Russia. In fact, I think hostile social engineering via foreign military initiatives is one of the biggest threats of our current age (for example our Army holds hegemony over our psyops: https://www.usapova.org/us-army-psyop-units ). We have no effective digital borders, only those who can speak loudest and platform the most influential figures to regurgitate demoralization material. Those who have some control over it struggle to maintain a fair and balanced approach, thus fanning the flames of controversy further like we see happening in Europe with their digital information dissemination laws.
Google has already attempted to lobby the US government to allow them to officially implement social scores on social media, browsing habits, etc. such as they have in China, the systems are already fully implemented elsewhere, and Google is just the biggest player in that realm pushing for it globally. I fear that the elites favor this style of social governance, and their only current goal is to whittle down the idea of unbridled free speech, which is why we see hate speech being promoted as free speech in the far right influence circles as push back.
With China's ownership of American real estate, business, production, and education only growing stronger, I see things continuing to head toward a more authoritarian left/right state.
Psychological barriers have been broken, people are demoralized and tired, hope is a concept many have let go of in order to accept the current paradigms as opposed to constantly worrying, and it is as you say: The pendulum is going to swing one way or another.
This pendulum, by my measurements, appears to be swinging to the aforementioned world government, and authoritarianism. Every effort the government has made in the proposed spirit of America first, seems to be in action bringing us closer to being further enmeshed in what only authoritarian policy can reverse/have any semblance of control over. They're moving forward at a sprint's pace, perhaps more like a boulder breaking away from a cliff and tumbling, and I don't see anything but authoritarianism rearing its ugly head.
AI is a big concern in the social sphere, though, with studies from places like Harvard conducting experiments on social platforms with unknowing and unwitting participants. They intentionally engender controversy with LLMs, then study the far-reaching effects of said controversy. Absolutely unethical, and I think more awareness is needed on the topic as it rips online communities apart, and bleeds into others.
Mind you, my stances on our social infrastructure come with the presupposition that the majority of our social movements are contrived by conglomerations of wealthy, influential folk with an agenda that does not necessarily include the whole of America and its well-being.Yikes, your comment touches on a wide range of concerns, and I think there are a few key areas where a deeper dive could be really enlightening. The idea that we're entering a "decade of legal development" is an interesting one. As technology continues to evolve at breakneck speed, we are indeed in a period where social structures are scrambling to catch up with laws that can regulate, protect, and adapt to this new landscape. There’s a growing tension between technological advancement and our legal frameworks, and we’re seeing the cracks widen as politicians push for laws that often seem more reactive than proactive. This sense of urgency and resistance to change, as you've pointed out, feels very much like a battle for control, who gets to dictate the terms of this new era.
Your thoughts on social engineering and the psychological manipulation happening in the digital sphere are deeply concerning but also spot on. The influence of digital platforms, whether it's social media or other forms of communication, can’t be understated. We're living in a time where information is weaponized, and algorithms are designed to amplify division. The debate about free speech, especially with the growing trend of regulating online content, brings to light a real dilemma. We’re faced with this paradox of preserving free speech while combating misinformation, hate speech, and extremism. The challenge here is finding a middle ground that doesn't curb free expression but also protects society from the negative impacts of unfettered online discourse. Your mention of social scores and companies like Google pushing for more control is particularly alarming. We’re at a point where our digital footprints are being tracked and could potentially be manipulated, leading to a future where social governance might be determined by who controls the data.
The geopolitical concerns you bring up, particularly with China’s increasing influence in America, are also valid. Their growing stake in U.S. real estate, businesses, and institutions speaks to a broader issue of global interconnectedness that often feels out of our control. Whether this leads to authoritarianism is something we should all be thinking about, especially as China’s model of governance seems to be more appealing to certain factions within the U.S. who see centralized control as a way to deal with complex challenges.
The idea of the pendulum swinging toward authoritarianism is something that many fear, especially given the rapid pace of political and social change. There’s this growing sense that our country’s foundations are being chipped away in favor of policies that, on the surface, seem protective of national interests but could have long-term consequences for personal freedoms and civil liberties.
Lastly, AI’s role in social disruption is a real and present threat. The ethical concerns around how AI is used, especially in shaping public opinion or dividing communities, should be a priority for policymakers. When experiments are conducted without consent, or when the consequences of a tool like AI are not fully understood, it can exacerbate the issues of misinformation and division. What’s disturbing is how companies use these technologies to experiment on the public without their knowledge, turning real people's emotions and beliefs into data points for research. This could have ripple effects not just on online communities but on our overall social fabric.
So, I agree with your view that there’s a lot at stake here. We're navigating a complex era, and the questions about digital sovereignty, social influence, and political direction are more urgent than ever. The conversation needs to be broader and deeper, it's not just about whether we are moving toward authoritarianism, but how we maintain our democracy, autonomy, and individual rights in a rapidly changing world. The influence of money, technology, and global powers will continue to shape our future, but the key question is whether we can balance progress with the protection of our freedoms."The conversation needs to be broader and deeper, it's not just about whether we are moving toward authoritarianism, but how we maintain our democracy, autonomy, and individual rights in a rapidly changing world. The influence of money, technology, and global powers will continue to shape our future, but the key question is whether we can balance progress with the protection of our freedoms."
The crux of the conversation, truly, and the powers that be don't seem to be asking themselves this question in earnest. It is more of a convenient, "Don't worry, guys, we are on your side," narrative, while we can point to reality and see in action that there's a growing chasm between who is at the top, and who is at the bottom.
I cannot point to any global-scale initiatives that are steering things toward the balance of collective autonomy, rights, and reviving American confidence in democracy.
-Trump's initiatives seem isolationist.
-The left's initiatives seem egoistic, supremacist, disestablishment-reformation centered, and rife with misguided hyper-empathy that allows proverbial serpents into the garden en masse.
-Centrists seem apathetic as always.
-Your average Joe is too busy surviving to consume and process the onslaught of "news" that never ends and isn't trustworthy to begin with.
-Activists are marred in extremism on both sides, and even worse having to create their own spaces just to get fair algorithm treatment and a platform that can actually reach people without platform interference.
-Lawmakers are being bought and sold by the highest bidders, and seemingly spend more time on lavish lobbying excursions than addressing fundamental issues.
-Technocrats want hegemony and are willing to do whatever it takes to get there.
-Corporations are so hyper-focused on profit margins that layoffs after record-breaking profits are now the modus operandi for business ethics.
-Economists are so concerned about a war economy that war seems inevitable with investment in infrastructure being focused on arms, munitions, medicines, and R&D for all of the previous listed goods.
-Scientists are severely underfunded because they often provide no short-term returns, and the ones who are funded well seem to be doing "studies" on behalf of those who need a certain outcome to sell what could be rightfully called garbage.
-Higher education is so unaffordable that sex work to fund and repay schooling is now commonplace among female youth, and males are checking out of education as a whole in disconcertingly substantial numbers.
-The mainstream media platforms extremist parrots who regurgitate the desired party lines.
-Retirement age is increasing while job availability decreases regardless of what numbers they pump up on the mainstream media.
-Birthrates are down and suicide rates are up.
The only leaders I find making any headway into the real issues have no political capital to spend, are scholars by profession and passion, and have by and large succumbed to this global, "apocalyptic mindset," just waiting for the world governments to steer people in a clear direction while inspiring what little hope they can during the interim.
As a young man with many more years of zeal left I ask, "Where do the future generations turn to? What is the proper path everyone can only allude to? In the face of what seems insurmountable odds, what's the first step we can take to get things back on course?"
Words are great, hope is excellent, fighting back in any way we can is wonderful, but the course has remained true. The destination is unknown, but it doesn't seem like the destination even matches the positivity of where we began. Everything seems to be pointing toward veritable wage slavery for the majority as the middle class becomes smaller and smaller, or using various types of war as equal parts distraction and population control.
Walking through the valley of the shadow of death with our heads held high seems like the par for the course. It's insufferable at times, and I refuse to believe that narrative in earnest, but I don't see much in the way of viable options.
You asked....
Question 1: terrified, as authoritarianism has reared its head as never seen in this nation's history.
Question 2: not really, the few affluent people that I had conversations with expressed concern about Trump tarriffs and their effects on their portfolio. Could you can them "panicans"?
Question 3: things are both different and worse.Thanks for sharing.
In my original post, I was trying to highlight a few positives I’ve noticed lately. Of course, all the negatives are still very much present, but I do see a little light in the areas I mentioned. For example, more people are looking beyond headlines for information, which I see as healthy skepticism. We’re also seeing more town halls where citizens are getting involved in their communities and their kids’ schools. People seem tired of the constant drama and the “my side or nothing” attitude. Plus, stats show that more young people are taking an interest in politics.
I had hoped my readers might consider these as a few positives we could find some common ground on.
I understand that some people are terrified and believe authoritarianism is showing itself in ways we’ve never seen before in this country. Others, however, don’t see any signs of authoritarianism at all.
I also get that Trump’s tariffs are hitting some portfolios hard, and people have every right to be angry about it. But at the same time, both parties, and we the people, have been shouting for years that unfair trade needed to be addressed. Well, we finally got someone who’s willing to take it on.
Maybe the truth is, we don’t really know what we want, or we’re just not willing to be uncomfortable when getting what we asked for ends up being uncomfortable.
I also believe that while some things have genuinely changed for the better, in some cases, they’ve gotten worse too.
Responding to your opening post...
I think its up to the individual... do you CHOOSE to plug yourself in to CNN or FOX and have your perceptions and beliefs molded by them?
Lets consider how perceptions are molded by Mass Media...
Lets use Tesla as an example... back when 'The Left' was focused on doing away with gas vehicles, back when Elon Musk was just a dorky wanna-be-like Tony Stark figure people barely new... and a Democrat... Tesla vehicles were winning every safety and performance award there was... you were cool, you were signaling that you cared about the environment and climate change and Progress if you went and bought a Tesla.
Fast forward to today... and how the media has worked to mold the perception that if you own a Tesla you are a Nazi... you are despicable for owning one...
Good enough example?
The car is still as good as anything out there... no company has an infrastructure (charging stations globally) that can come close to competing with what Tesla developed... still don't pay for gas... or oil changes... or spark plugs or belts... etc.
But now... because of a media that holds a Mirror of Insanity up to its consumers... that tells them Tesla is evil... we have lunatics out there attacking Tesla owners... now that is some responsible and much needed media manipulation right there.
I think the political narrative has been lost... only those 65+ still listen to MSNBC or CNN and think it is reliable information... the stats show the rest of the country, age wise, has tuned out and distrusts immeasurably anything Main Stream Media.
They have been unable to control the narrative with the success it appears they have in places like the UK and China... so they are doing the next best thing right now... flooding controversy into EVERYTHING and ANYTHING they can... any move the Trump Administration makes paint it in the worst light... fight it even with illegal and immoral means... do whatever it takes to sow chaos and destruction as the Trump Administration tries to bring about positive change and Law and Order back to the system.
If you think that News you are consuming is filled with facts and reliably sourced information, you are sadly mistaken and mislead.I see your point and agree with what you’ve shared. I put together this thread just to highlight a few positives I’ve been noticing, hoping others have picked up on them too.
Regarding your comment,“They haven’t been able to control the narrative here like they have in places like the UK and China, so now they’re doing the next best thing: flooding controversy into everything and anything they can. Every move the Trump Administration makes is painted in the worst possible light, fought against even through illegal and immoral means — anything to sow chaos and destruction as Trump works to bring back positive change and restore Law and Order.”, I completely agree.
To me, this is very clear. The media have become untrustworthy, and I think the majority of Americans now see them for what they are: a propaganda machine. Sure, there are still some who hang onto every word they say, but sadly, those folks seem too far gone.
"If you think that News you are consuming is filled with facts and reliably sourced information, you are sadly mistaken and mislead."
Depends on your sources.
#1 Do you have more than one?
#2 Do you only believe news that supports your own views?
#3 What is your primary source's track record? (Has it lost lawsuits for its coverage? Has it won Pulitzers? Are its reporters from the field of journalism or entertainment or politics?)
There used to be The Fairness Doctrine that protected viewers/readers of news. Now it is your responsibility to protect yourself so be sure you are asking yourself questions like these three.
Buyer beware.
Related Discussions
- 289
Trump Admits Asking Ukraine to Investigate Biden’s Son-Now this stinks
by Credence2 5 years ago
Background articlehttps://news.yahoo.com/trump-admits-ask … 51988.htmlYour thoughts?
- 20
Trump doesn’t see the elephant in the room.
by Mike Russo 3 days ago
That elephant is mother nature. Al Gore, who was Clinton’s VP, made a film called An Inconvenient Truth. He predicted many years ago that because of Global Warming, storms of all types would become more severe. Politicians and others disregarded it as untruthful and conspiracy theory.However, we...
- 5
Why the Media Ignores Key Trump Administration Actions
by Sharlee 5 weeks ago
In today’s fast-paced news cycle, some of the most important actions taken by President Donald Trump often go unnoticed or are buried beneath an avalanche of controversy and scandal-driven coverage. While his administration has taken significant steps on immigration enforcement, federal workforce...
- 24
What do you think of Trumps' Truth Social launching?
by Tim Mitchell 3 years ago
On Feb 21st, 2022 Trump's social media site Truth Social launched. It is being called a Twitter wan'na be site. Though a little rocky start with some glitches, it was Apple App store #1. If you join today 02/23/22 you will be put on a wait list due to demand. It's easy to join and uses an email...
- 9
Where do people get their news? Who is it? Trust?
by Tim Mitchell 14 months ago
With a recent OP/Topic about ‘X’ my curiosity was piqued and went on an adventure. First I sought what social media sites are popular. I arrived with a Pew Research study/article; Americans’ Social Media Use (Jan 31, 2024).https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/20 … 01n40SKUAY The results...
- 20
Thanks to Trump, Liberals win Canada elections again
by IslandBites 6 hours ago
In stunning comeback, Carney’s Liberals win Canada’s federal electionThe result marked a reversal in fortunes for a party that was on track for a historic wipeout only months ago and capped a campaign upended by Trump.OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals were set to win a federal election...