Search Results: party ideas

QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory and political movement that emerged in 2017, originating from anonymous posts on fringe internet forums such as 4chan and later spreading through social media platforms.

At its core, QAnon alleges that the world is controlled by a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles, supposedly embedded within Hollywood, the Democratic Party, mainstream media, and government agencies, often referred to as the "deep state".

Central Beliefs and "The Storm"

QAnon followers believe former President Donald Trump is secretly leading a crusade against this alleged cabal.

The theory claims Trump will trigger an event dubbed "The Storm," resulting in mass arrests and public exposure of high-profile figures accused by the movement of participating in these crimes.

QAnon adherents interpret cryptic messages or "Q-drops" posted by an anonymous entity known as "Q" as clues about these battles and upcoming events, attempting to connect disparate conspiracies into a unified narrative.

Offshoot Conspiracies and Influence

The theory has absorbed older conspiracy ideas, like claims from the "Pizzagate" saga, and has linked together multiple beliefs, including supposed efforts to cover up child sex trafficking, adrenochrome harvesting, and secret government plots such as the JFK assassination and 9/11.

Followers frequently create and reinterpret new conspiracies based on current events, amplifying misinformation and political division

. Impact and SpreadQAnon has reached millions online and influenced real-world protests, violent incidents, and divided communities.

Its proliferation has led authorities like the FBI to label it as a domestic terrorism threat due to sporadic QAnon-inspired violence.

The movement's structure is decentralized, relying on internet communities and influencers to perpetuate its claims, often convincing everyday people they possess secret knowledge hidden from the general public.

Have one election, no primaries, and the top vote-getters go to Washington as the state’s representatives. It would result in wildly more diverse delegations, more moderates representing a wider range of ages, races and political beliefs than we have in Congress.

Rural voters wouldn’t lose “their” representatives under this system any more than urban voters would. In fact, all voters would be more represented, not less. For example, each Pennsylvanian would go from having three representatives to having 19. And each member could cultivate a statewide constituency based on political orientation, social beliefs and moral reasoning rather than geography.

Electing all the representatives at large would make all the districts in each state the same size. More important, it would end the redistricting wars that bedevil us only after the census but now seem destined to become a permanent & ugly fixture of American politics.

If each state chose its representatives in a single statewide election, the result would be a House of Representatives truly representative of the people. Smaller parties would finally stand a chance of winning a seat at the table. The two major parties would be forced to enter coalitions, which would require compromise and moderation — qualities sorely lacking.

Critics will insist that the House is no place for the 17th-place finisher. Perhaps. But could the resulting Congress be any more dysfunctional than the current one?

A single-vote, winners-take-all system would remove party politics and geography from the process. Representatives would represent people with shared ideologies, not some artificially constructed “district” where half the voters feel their representative is not representative of their beliefs.

For example, there aren’t enough socialists or libertarians in any one congressional district in PA to win a seat. But maybe there are enough socialists or libertarians statewide to enable a candidate to finish in the top 17.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-epstein-republican-voters/

The survey, which used a representative sample of around a thousand American voters, was conducted in late July 2025. Specifically, it asked, "If Donald Trump was officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking activities, would this make you more likely to vote for another party, or would it not affect your vote for Donald Trump?" Forty-seven percent of Republican respondents said such a revelation would not affect their vote. The survey did not ask whether respondents personally approved of the president's hypothetical implication in Epstein's crimes.

So to them 'pedo's are ok as long as its people i like'.

And before any maga's come in here no i would never have voted for either of the Clintons if they were implicated too (i wasn't old enough to vote for bill and i voted third party in 2016 anyways). Unlike them i do subscribe to the 'pedo's are bad no matter who it is' idea. I think it serves people well to believe in that.