The Republican party's internal conflict can be understood as a 'three-legged stool.' It comprises: 1) conspiracy theories (Epstein files), 2) core policy disagreements (tariffs, immigration), and 3) an ideological battle over foreign policy, particularly concerning Israel. This framework helps dissect the multifaceted nature of the party's fractures.

Luckey argues that US foreign policy is shifting away from direct military intervention. The new, more effective strategy is to arm allies, turning them into "prickly porcupines" that are difficult to attack. This approach maintains US influence and economic benefits while avoiding the political and human cost of deploying troops.

Instead of incremental shifts around a moderate center (e.g., between 4 and 6 on a dial), US policy now swings violently between ideological extremes (3 and 9). This dynamic makes stable, consensus-based governance on issues like immigration nearly impossible.

When a political movement is out of power, it's easy to unify against a common opponent. Once they gain power and become the establishment, internal disagreements surface, leading to factions and infighting as they debate the group's future direction.

Centrist policies don't have to be boring. By framing sensible, evidence-based ideas as "radical," moderates can capture public imagination and compete with the loud fringes of the political spectrum, making effective governance more appealing and electorally viable.

In Russia, nominally private companies like Gazprom function as direct extensions of the state. Their international investments are designed not just for profit but to achieve geopolitical goals, creating a system where foreign policy, business interests, and the personal wealth of the ruling class are completely inseparable.

The proposed peace plan negotiated by private business figures asks Ukraine to cede heavily fortified territory that Russia has failed to capture despite years of fighting and immense casualties. This is not a peace deal but a demand for surrender that rewards Russian aggression by effectively giving away strategic land for free.

From a branding perspective, voters value consistency, even if they disagree with the platform. A politician who flip-flops, like John Kerry, is seen as weak and unprincipled. Therefore, Marjorie Taylor Greene's sudden pivot away from Trump is a high-risk branding move that defies conventional political wisdom about adapting to sentiment.

Political alignment is becoming secondary to economic frustration. Voters are responding to candidates who address rising costs, creating unpredictable alliances and fracturing established bases. This dynamic is swamping traditional ideology, forcing both parties to scramble for a new populist message centered on financial well-being.