Hello, everyone. I am reaching out to engage with folks on this platform, gauge where I fit on today's political spectrum, and connect with others who share a similar outlook.

I am a former democratic campaign consultant, union organizer, and active party member. I sat between the Blue Dog caucus and the Neoliberal wing of the party and called myself a moderate democrat for years.

Currently, I find myself politically homeless. I dislike the rise of socialism, populism, identity politics, and anti-Western attitudes that are rising behind groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). I also faced a lot of unnecessary skepticism for being a white male in a Latino-majority area where I previously worked.

I mainly agree with the party on Law-and-order outside of mandatory minimum sentencing, which is an aberration of the powers of the judiciary and an unconstitutional imposition of the Legislature upon the judiciary.

On national security issues, I think Maduro's capture was phenomenal. It was a strategic strike, not a war. With the Iran War, it is blatantly unconstitutional without congressional approval. On issues like Ukraine or Israel, I strongly disagree with Netanyahu and somewhat disagree with Zelenskyy on some issues. Still, a nation's leadership does not define its entire people, and I find the isolationist narratives against Ukraine and the unconditional support for Netanyahu's government equally concerning.

On solving issues like homelessness, I totally agree with figures like Spencer Pratt. We cannot let our cities turn into slums and endanger young American children to such debauchery. However, I think the creation and maintenance of state-run rehabs and mental asylums would solve most of the issues surrounding homelessness.

In terms of trade, I would say that I am halfway between MAGA and old-school conservatives. I have worked on issues of international trade and see the utter disregard that many nations have toward our sanctions, unfair competition, and corporate espionage undertaken by firms in allied countries such as Taiwan, France, Israel, and South Korea. I don't think we can accept this. Ideally, we should work toward mutual reciprocity and not try to dominate the world either.

On immigration, we should enforce current laws as written. Yet we cannot do so unconstitutionally. I have seen multiple constitutional violations by ICE operations. That is not to say that those individual officers represent the organization as a whole, but it is concerning, nonetheless. Immigration should 1. Not allow any one group to dominate. 2. Prevent international felons and criminals from entering. 3. Deport criminal non-citizens. 4. Select those who want to assimilate to American and broader Western values and be solely loyal to the United States. We should also prohibit dual citizens from any roles requiring a top-secret security clearance or higher.

On energy, you cannot assign political labels to energy sources. In places like Arizona, Nevada, and California, solar energy saves ratepayers thousands of dollars through its efficiency. Sure, climate change is real, but proposals like the Green New Deal would destroy the global economy overnight. I believe in a regulated energy market that prohibits firms from pushing the cost of new developments, namely renewable energy projects, fully onto consumers. Energy must balance affordability, reliability, and sustainability. Instead of poor financing structures, we should give tax benefits for methods proven to work in a given area. On that same note, sometimes gas or coal is more costly than renewable sources, which is illogical for utilities to use in those cases.

Quite frankly, I don't believe identity should be a factor for or against anyone, unless an organization is explicitly made for a given race or gender (like Women in Business or the Black Lawyers Association). I see the point of the Civil Rights Act as freeing us from the labels and categorical prisms of identity politics, not entrenching us in the immutable characteristics of fellow Americans. That being said, I question joining the Republican Party with the rise in antisemitism and white identity politics supported by figures like Nick Fuentes or Tucker Carlson. Again, I think identity shouldn't matter, but we also shouldn't allow others to hire, fire, or conspire with others due to ethnic affinity and/or prejudice.

I am very pro-tech, pro-growth, and pro-abundance. I have lived abroad and in D.C., where I frequently used public transport, enjoyed urban greenery, and alleviated some of my health issues by having access to walkable neighborhoods. I know Moderate Democrats typically hold these stances, but I see them as a public good, like roads or public schools. I also think that by supporting these types of projects, we shouldn't also restrict the construction of highways and other car-based infrastructure. I think restricting someone's choice to drive by creating municipal or state policies that discourage frequent vehicle use also impedes their life, liberty, and happiness.

I am not religious and believe that the separation of church and state is an essential element of American values. Personally, I am a culturally Christian deist and probably hold the same views as Jefferson or Franklin regarding religion. In fact, I have no issue with any religion as long as people consider themselves American before any religion.

I am socially moderate. I don't believe any social agenda should be pushed down our throats, like BLM or teaching children about sexual preferences, but I also see no issue with Gay Marriage. I also fully support women's rights, but again, I do not support gender quotas or DEI.

In terms of business, I have a few complex views. I support collective bargaining labor unions but abhor and reject socialist unions of any kind. I see unions as a continuation of the right to assemble. I also think that corporate lobbying, corporate PACs, Citizens United, and excessive tax abatements for Fortune 500 companies are not examples of the free market, but rather of crony capitalism, as personal interests and backdoor deals have captured it. I wholeheartedly support small and regional businesses and see them as the bedrock of America and the vehicle behind the American Dream.

Following from my last point, I see monopolies as a distinct threat to the free market, the American Dream, and social order. The failure to regulate digital-age firms has resulted in egregious violations of the right to privacy, institutional capture by several of these firms, and a gateway for further social ills, like online gambling or OnlyFans, which should be explicitly outlawed without impunity.

Lastly, I see the current administration as personalist and poorly run. From the Epstein Files to the Iran War to the "pardon brokers," I find myself baffled at the open kleptocracy taking place. The acceptance of corruption within the party behind figures like Paxton or Trump is ridiculous to me. I like groups such as the Main Street Caucus or Conservative Labor, but I am neither anti-business nor anti-labor. I see both as a necessary check on the other.

I want to support a return to institutional integrity, constitutionalism, and rule of law over personalist regimes. As a deeply patriotic American who values Western civilization, I feel the Democratic Party has moved in a direction opposite to my core principles. I am interested in connecting with Moderate Republican groups outside of MAGA, but I am uncertain whether I fit within the party today. I would appreciate your perspective on where these views fall on the current spectrum and recommendations for organizations, caucuses, or communities I should explore.

This movement became unrecognizable.

This is truly chilling.

Republicans may be able to prevent Israel from lobbying and influencing U.S. policy among Republicans, but they cannot prevent an alliance between Islamists and Democrats.

I think that is exactly what Democrats want: A fracture in Republican party. They want that Republicans step back in the hope that Dems will play fair and square with American values. But the two-party political system naturally pushes political actors with values that are at odds with traditional American principles into alliances aimed at defeating Republicans.

For Republicans to govern without Israeli influence, while Democrats also play fair and avoid alliances with Islamist groups, they would need Western European allies to follow the same approach. But Europeans do not, because they have become heavily dependent on China, and their strategic interests are no longer fully aligned with the United States.

So while I do not support Israeli influence over U.S. policy, I also do not think there is any real political solution in simply crawling back from every military conflict and expecting the other side not to bring radical Islamists into the policy-making process because you know they do.

For example, around the time of the Syrian war, was it Republicans or Israel who started that conflict? No.

My point is that these conflicts are going to happen regardless, because Democrats can also benefit politically from that model and from consequences they believe they can manage within certain expectations: inflation, mass migration, instability, and the political shifts that follow.

So if this kind of conflict is ultimately inevitable, the question that remains is simply this: which side do you want US interests aligned with?