There is only one good reason to think of yourself as gay;
if you are a man, you are very much sexually attracted to other men
and much less sexually attracted to women.

Unless you think cum is nasty, why would you not continue sucking when you cum?
Why would it be a gay or bi thing? It's your OWN dick and your OWN cum.
You are experiencing what many gay men and (probably less) straight women experience. Does it make you sexually attracted to men? Does it make you a woman? I don't think so. Of course, lots of homophobes think so, but never listen to them, because they are stupid.

If you are limited by some homophobia yourself, OK there are lots of good and bad reasons
to not live your life to the fullest. It's your life to live or ruin as you see fit.
Just don't ruin the lives of anyone else with your homophobia.

I don't consider myself to be gay.
I don't like licking anuses much either.

I had a day off. We went shopping and eating out in Westfield Mall
of the Netherlands. There was a fun LEGO® Art Exhibit too.

It's not 'free money', it's advertising that brought the company revenue.
You think that a company that can advertise about doing exactly that,
would be allowed to never even pay a cent?
There are government agencies that investigate claims like that.

Well, maybe the agency that did that is destroyed by Trump now, so yes,
you can NOW assume that companies that make such claims are scamming you.

phart: "I have not heard him say anything about poor people in a negative way"

You're kidding right? He thinks poor people are waste.
You yourself think poor people are waste.
You think they are lazy moochers and a waste of money.
It's burned into your brain so deep, that you don't even notice.
And Trump is affirming that every time he speaks, without you even noticing.

"People given everything they need and more from the tax payers pockets and do nothing, have no reason to change their ways. no motivation, no desire to do better. Because they don't give a damn."
You think "burger flippers" should not be paid a living wage.
You think they are too lazy to better themselves. How should they do that?
Where should they get the money for school or investments,
while they work 60 hrs per week to afford a shitty apartment?
At best they get some on the job course for team-leader.
How many people are working some shit job, just to pay the bills?
Tell me, what do they need to do, "to do better"?
What if they have an IQ of 80? Never a living wage for that guy?

Your right-wing media is pissing on the poor on a daily basis too.
That's where you get your hate of poor people from, it's by example.
They are all millionaires and they think poor people are waste.
They are now even suggesting to just kill homeless people. Did you hear?

Do you remember saying that you don't have any money to spend on poor people
in other countries, as long as there are still homeless people in the US?
You're not the only one to say it either.
So, are you spending any money on helping the homeless now?

You are far more intelligent than the people who are not able to argue,
or the ones who are not interested to hear anything they don't agree with.
You are actually making me put my money where my mouth is. I love it!


Trump: “My entire life, I’ve watched politicians bragging about how poor they are, how they came from nothing, how poor their parents and grandparents were. And I said to myself, if they can stay so poor for so many generations, maybe this isn’t the kind of person we want to be electing to higher office. How smart can they be? They’re morons.”

Trump: “I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions, I just don’t want a poor person.”

[What is he saying? If you come from poor parents, you must be stupid, because
your parents are stupid for being poor, so you have 'stupid genes'. He is clearly arguing against your 'American dream'. I am doing that too, but in a different way.
I am saying the odds are stacked against a poor person making it big.]

Question: How smart do you need to be, to keep a fortune paying out for you indefinitely? How much work does it take?
My answer: You just pick the best people to handle it for you.
Of course you don't trust just one. Is that very difficult? A lot of work?
(One 'stable genius' hired Michael Cohen, to break the law for him.)


Don't you remember him scolding AOC like a million times for having been poor?

“The Green New Deal … done by a young bartender, 29 years old.”

“Instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens … and straighten out her filthy, disgusting, crime ridden streets, in the District she ‘represents,’ and which she never goes to anymore.”

[What is he saying? Go feed some soup to the homeless, instead of involving yourself in the big decisions that touch the lives of all Americans, of which half are at least struggling to make ends meet. You need to be rich to decide anything for them.]

“How dare ‘The Mouse’ tell us how to run the United States of America!”


It's not just him, your whole party shits on the poor. It's Republican culture.
I'm amazed how many poor people vote for a party that hates them
and doesn't want any of them even near positions of influence.


Did you never notice any of your politicians making a point out of AOC having worked in a restaurant? How about making a fuzz about her now spending good money on a hair-dresser or a dress? Or did you think: "Yeah, what was this poor Mexican girl thinking, when she got into politics. It's a job for rich white men, to decide where
our government spends all our money."?

Trump, other politicians and your media are directly arguing that she doesn't have a right to complain that poor people have it tough, because she was poor and got out. Do you agree with that idea? Who would be a better representative of poor people,
a previously poor person who has some money now or a born-rich person? (bella!)

Have you ever heard anyone on your side making a fuzz about some rich bitch spending money on her hair or clothes? It's acceptable for all your politicians who grew up in a wealthy family, isn't it? When do you hear the same about a politician who was born rich or had 3 businesses and millions in stocks, before they became
a politician?

Why 1925? Your democracy was still mostly intact for decades after 1925.
It wasn't until Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that the Supreme Court ruled that limits on how much a candidate can spend of their own money on political donations (to prevent corruption) are unconstitutional, since spending is a form of free speech.
Presidents were already taking more power before 1925.
Below is a whole list. Why pick 1925?

Do you think everything was better in 1925?
How about the stupidity that caused the Great Depression?

Do you prefer to eliminate the corruption that suits your views?
Don't you like it that billionaires control your politics?
It has served your political agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Andrew Jackson (actually before Lincoln, but foundational, 1829–1837)
Aggressively used the veto not just on constitutional grounds but as a policy tool.
Positioned himself as the direct representative of the people against Congress.
Set an early precedent for a more assertive presidency.

2. Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865)
Civil War emergency powers: suspension of habeas corpus, unilateral military spending, Emancipation Proclamation.
Established that presidents could stretch constitutional authority in crises.

3. Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909)
“Stewardship theory”: the president could do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
Used executive orders aggressively to regulate corporations and protect natural resources.
Expanded U.S. global role (e.g., Panama Canal, “big stick” diplomacy) with little congressional input.

4. Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921)
Transformed the president into the legislative agenda-setter, giving the State of the Union as a personal speech.
During WWI, centralized wartime authority (propaganda, industry control).
Pushed the idea of the U.S. president as a world leader (League of Nations).

5. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)
The biggest expansion of presidential power in U.S. history.
New Deal: unprecedented use of executive agencies to regulate the economy.
WWII: near-total centralization of foreign and military policy in the White House.
Broke the 2-term precedent (served 4 terms).
After him, Congress passed the 22nd Amendment (1951) to limit presidential terms.

6. Cold War Presidents (Truman → Reagan, 1945–1989)
Truman: asserted the power to commit U.S. troops abroad without a declaration of war (Korea).
National Security Act of 1947: created the CIA, NSC, DoD — permanent national security state under presidential control.
Nixon: pushed executive privilege and secrecy to extremes (though Watergate led Congress to claw back some power in the 1970s).
Reagan: expanded use of executive agreements and covert operations (Iran-Contra).

7. Post–Cold War to War on Terror (1990s–2000s)
Clinton: normalized executive policymaking through regulation when Congress was gridlocked.
George W. Bush: after 9/11, claimed sweeping “unitary executive” powers — indefinite detentions, surveillance, military action (Iraq & Afghanistan) with minimal congressional declarations.
Obama: expanded drone strike authority, unilateral action on immigration (DACA), and continued broad surveillance.

8. Recent Presidents (Trump & Biden)
Trump: declared a national emergency to redirect funds to build the border wall; pushed boundaries of executive orders; challenged congressional oversight.
Biden: heavy reliance on executive action for climate, student loans, and foreign affairs when Congress is gridlocked.

Trump is doing now almost everything with emergency powers and executive actions. Even his own Supreme Court justices are now getting to the end of their patience. He is also abusing his presidential immunity. Ordering to blow up a boat with 11 civilians, in international waters, is murder, even if they are smuggling drugs. The president doesn't have the power to order this. Both Congress and the Supreme Court should act now, because Trump is just testing the waters and moving the goalposts, to do the same to American citizens that he considers to be criminals.
Will you just take his word for it then? What am I asking...

OK, instead of a politician, do you know any person, who you would consider to have the decency, honesty, competence and strength of character for you to support them for president?

CAT might be better than Trump and Biden, but most people don't know her.
How about someone who everyone knows and respects?

MAGA is literally supporting to have some 'benevolent dictator' who is voted in and then never have elections again. If you don't trust presidents now, would you trust one that you can never vote out?

The idea of your Constitution was that the president is just some moderator,
to control the debate between the parties and to sign the end result, when the process was performed well. The term 'president' has Latin roots, prae- (meaning before) + sedere (meaning to sit), so "president" originally meant "the one who presides over a meeting or assembly.". It was not originally a title of great power, but rather someone who oversaw or chaired a gathering. However,your presidents have been attracting lots of power, mostly because Congress was to ineffective to make choices. Your Republicans have now completely turned it to a fucking mess, allowing Trump to do almost everything with emergency decrees and executive actions. The Supreme Court is setting some limits, but mostly they'll allow it, because they are by majority partisan conservatives, who don't care that The Founding Fathers
are rolling around in their graves at 10,000 rpm.

How about going back to a president who is just a chair person, with
elected representatives in Congress making laws and voting for them, and
a Supreme Court that is just checking whether the law is being followed?

Completely different Republicans, completely different Democrats.
The South supported slavery, states’ rights, while the North wanted to stop it.
The rural conservative South favored the Democrats back then
and the progressive North favored the Republicans.
Obviously that has now completely flipped. It took almost a century.

There are now Republicans saying to bring back slavery of some sort.

Actually, you yourself supports something very close to slavery.
You certainly don't support human rights, the basis for rejecting slavery.

Why does your party still Pledge Allegiance to "Liberty, EQUALITY, and Justice For All"?
It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist.
YOU SHOULD FUCKING HATE IT!! But, it's part of your Republican LIBERAL heritage.
(The 'under god' part was added by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, gutting the secularism)

Still, the rural conservative South supports and defends the side of slavery
and that side is still flying the Confederate flag. Southern Democrats were
the backbone of secession and the Confederacy.

Now why would the current Republican party support the flag of the Southern Democrats, as important part of their history, while the current Democratic party wants to ban it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signs of the Democrats’ Southern / rural past:

- The Democratic donkey dates back to Andrew Jackson (a Southern Democrat, 1820s
–30s). Jackson’s populist, agrarian base was deeply Southern and rural. The symbol stuck, even after the party’s base shifted.

- State Democratic parties long held fundraising dinners named after Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, both icons of the party’s rural, Southern, agrarian roots.
(In recent years, some states renamed them because of the association with slavery.)

- In parts of the Deep South, older voters and local politics still have Democratic
“family traditions” going back generations, even though most white Southerners shifted Republican after the 1960s.

- Some Southern local offices (sheriffs, judges, county clerks) stayed Democratic for decades after the national shift, only recently becoming Republican.

- Even today, Democrats sometimes invoke themes of “the little guy vs. the elites” —
a populist tone that echoes their 19th-century rural base, even though the “little guy”
is now imagined as an urban worker or minority voter rather than a small farmer.

Signs of the Republicans’ Northern / progressive past:

- The Republican symbol of the elephant was popularized by cartoonist Thomas Nast,
a Northern progressive Republican, in 1874 and stuck through repeated use, eventually becoming the party’s enduring symbol. Back then, it was still the party of the Union victory, civil rights for freedmen, and Northern progressives.

- The Republican Party branded itself as the party of Union victory and progress after the Civil War. Even though it’s now dominant in the South, the GOP still calls itself “the party of Lincoln.”

- Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, is still celebrated by Republicans, even though he was the leader of the anti-slavery, Northern-based party. The annual “Lincoln Day Dinners” at GOP events are a direct tie to those Northern progressive origins.

- Through the mid-20th century, the GOP still had a liberal/progressive wing based in the Northeast (e.g., Nelson Rockefeller of New York). While diminished today, some of that tradition survives in moderate Republicans from states like Maine (e.g., Susan Collins).

- Republicans historically pushed protective tariffs, banking reform, railroads, and infrastructure to grow the industrial North. Echoes of this “pro-business, pro-modernization” stance remain in the GOP’s emphasis on free markets, trade, and corporate growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats KNOW their history, but you are just too fucking dumb to understand
that the parties flipped sides.

Are you denying that it was the SOUTH that wanted to keep slavery
and that it was the NORTH who wanted to abolish it?
Are you denying that the NORTH won the civil war and the SOUTH lost?

It's as simple as 1+1=2, but you keep denying the obvious.

That happens for black people too. They have been at the job for years, doing great, showing leadership, making profit for the owner, and then they get passed by some snot-nose white kid fresh from college, with no experience. That's not a DEI thing. The bunch who get passed always hates it, but when it's a black person, people remember it more.
The other thing you are describing is nepotism. That's completely separate from what you are describing as some black preference. Management doesn't have an incentive to appoint people who are unqualified, unless it benefits their own family. One exception; when the person who seems unqualified is also much cheaper, that is also an incentive for management. They are not always picking quality over cost. If you need to promote someone with an already high paycheck, that is expensive. If they can get away with a kid with no experience, but who will work their ass off, that is cheap and maybe it will work out.
You are forgetting that. Do I have to explain that your principles might clash
with an employer's principles?

Because you don't have a reason for your grievances and they do.
All the problems you have with them are caused by your actions.
They are still suffering from inequality, because you didn't accept them as equal.

DEI was giving people more opportunities to show themselves qualified,
but people like you cannot handle it, when a black person gets the job
that you think you are entitled to. A small person then thinks that the other person wasn't even qualified. Just little white snowflakes.

About 90% of Trump's administration consists of dumb-ass amateurs.
No black person in any of those positions ever fucked-up like them.
Your MAGA culture just worships stupidity, there is no other explanation.

Stop with your white male grievance bullshit, it's pathetic.
Trump destroyed DEI, fired many black people with lots of experience
and replace them with stupid, drunk, racist white BOYS. That's DEI.

Yes, you think that, because Trump TOLD YOU. You don't have good reasons.
Meanwhile, your country has the highest GDP in the world and controls all new media, so it couldn't be all that bad. The fact that the American people are not feeling the wealth, is your own choice, you're all serving the wealthy.
That you have 200 military bases in the world, was to serve your own interests,
like stealing all the resources from poor people, that wasn't because other countries asked you to do that. The whole world is/was using the dollar, which made your country too big to fail. That also mostly serves your wealthy people, but all of that is your own fault. And you're now not correcting your fault, you're doubling and tripling down on it. Everything that Trump is doing or trying is worsening the problem.

The question mark behind your comment says everything.
Yes, I can come up with Post hoc rationalization nonsense too.

It's possible that a relationship with a trans person made him realize that their persecution is wrong, but that doesn't turn around someone's whole ideology.
There would be a whole lot of right-wing speakers who are persecuting trans people much more than Charlie Kirk. Matt Walsh comes to mind. What was however currently ongoing, was a fitty between Nick Fuentes' groypers and Charlie Kirk's followers. That's why Nick Fuentes is now the only one on the right who is crawling back his hateful remarks. He knows that he caused this death and he fears retaliation from Charlie Kirk's followers. See for yourself.

Nick Fuentes warned his “groyper army” he would disown anyone who took up arms in retaliation. Starting 5m05:
only registered users can see external links
Now why would he say that?

Also, his grandmother, Debby Robinson, says that every single one in her family
is a Republican and Trump supporter. She is more offended by the her grandson being called a leftist, than that she's offended by his crime.

If a gangster boss can afford a bullet proof car, so can a government.

Can you give me an example of what Trump has delivered, that will be common place
in 80 years?

Listen; fascism HAS the ability to unite a country, it's after-all based on nationalism.
That will result in some creations that stand the test of time. That doesn't make the fascism OK, because it's based on DIVISION. How about UNIFICATION to actually make the world better? Hurting scapegoats does NOT solve problems.
Or do you think that the Jews were the problem and Germany improved itself
from blaming and then exterminating the Jews?

Solving the actual problems solves problems, without the VICTIMS.
Is this some 'far left lunacy' or can you at least see that?

That's the fucking lowest bar ever! "most welfare recipients"?
Not even ALL of them? Damn, that's Freudian slip, if I ever heard one.

No, Trump is more damaging than all welfare recipients put together.
He is currently putting your country into STAGFLATION. He is destroying the relationship with every other country, without even succeeding in befriending the horrible dictators that he likes so much. Your country has been failing for a while,
but he is accelerating it. This will be you, once you finally realize it:



Tweeting and destroying is 'doing things', but even you cannot call it 'working'.

Bernie Sanders should have been president. He has worked his ass off for working class people for DECADES. He is not a hateful, selfish buffoon like Trump. He has worked with everyone on both sides, if they were honestly willing to improve anything for normal Americans. You can only think of the left as 'nut jobs', because that's the right-wing indoctrination inoculation against the truth. Try to show them wrong.

You didn't react to ANYTHING in that post. Don't you even notice?
Why do you think that a billionaire nepo-baby makes a better president
than a career politician? If a politician has a long career doesn't that mean
that their constituents keep voting for them? Is that bad, by definition?
At least they understand how to write laws and they have seen how it worked out.
Why would that be a negative thing? Would you say the same about a carpenter
or a truck driver? Why is it good to pick amateurs to organize the country?
You are only saying that, because your subconsciously noticing the horrible corruption in your country, and you're associating it with all politicians. The longer they stay, the worse they must be. There is NO REASON to it. A newcomer could easily be much worse. They could have lots of selfish reasons to go into politics. They often have a big company that is having problems with regulation or competition. When they have destroyed the regulation or the competition, they bugger off again, or go look for other deals to personally profit from. That's not what politicians should do. They shouldn't
be working to shape the country towards their own benefit, they should be working
FOR THE PEOPLE. They should solve YOUR problems, not their own problems.

You do ignore anything that you cannot argue against. When I can show you evidence, to justify my point, you just ignore that I'm right and move on to the next point. Then a few days later, you come back to the point I showed you are wrong on before. If you can show mt facts to be incorrect, or my argumentation to be fallacious, I will correct myself. It's just really rare that you are correct on a fact or on the logic leading to a conclusion.
If there are lots of people agreeing with you, that just means that it's an echo chamber, it doesn't mean that you are correct.

Do you call that WORKING?

Why do you think that a billionaire nepo-baby would make a better president
than a career politician? Do either care about YOU?

It's your stupid corrupt system that churns out 'career politicians'.
I want real REPRESENTATIVES, from working class families,
who gained knowledge and experience and then go into politics
to improve the system for YOU, because they still understand people like YOU.
People like Trump only understand how to USE people like YOU.

What does Trump say about someone from a poor family who goes into politics?
When they support the working class, he treats them like GARBAGE.
That should be enough for you to understand the problem.

My royal family doesn't have ANY power. They are just well-payed mascots
and diplomats. They serve the same purpose as the national soccer team.

Real privilege is not having worked a day in your life,
never having done anything positive for anyone else,
but only served your own wealth and power,
and then getting elected for POTUS,
because people like your hate and bullshit.

I always address your words, you are the one mostly ignoring mine.

You're sounding like your country is some sort of socialist Utopia, where people don't need to work to stay alive. Who in his right mind can still think that? When you need to feed kids in school, because they are hungry, that's not 'socialism', that's a sign that your people are HURTING. Their parents are working their asses off, but their employers don't pay them enough, their landlords are taking all their money, so they don't have any left for food, to feed their children. That shouldn't be fixed with taxes, that should be fixed by reducing the EXPLOITATION SYSTEM.

How do people need to do better? Work harder for their employer? They will love it, but won't pay a cent more. How about education? Trump is destroying schools as we speak. No one can afford to go to school anymore.

Standing up for yourself and your family is NOT "Toxic masculinity", that's a stupid
straw-man. Treating women like slaves and whores is "toxic masculinity". That is what your manosphere influencers are supporting. What they are also supporting is millions for them and obedient servitude for all their followers. They are telling them the same fantasy that you believe, but that's not how they get rich. They got rich by selling a lie, like every other scammer who profits from people's misery. It's millionaires lying for billionaires.
Not everyone can get rich from spouting propaganda on the internet. Some people
need to do actual work.

Do you remember who those "essential workers" were, during Covid?
Those jobs still don't pay shit. We cannot all be managers, business people,
stock traders and infuencers. We DON'T all need to "improve" ourselves,
every job is important to keep the economy growing and progressing.
And everyone who contributes to that should be able to make a good living
for their family. That's not a privilege, that's what we ALL deserve.
The people who are privileged are the people who are born with a silver spoon
in their mouth, thinking they deserve to have more than everyone else, by birth-right.
Why do stupid people always flip that around?
Why isn't it obvious to you what they are doing?
YOU ARE INDOCTRINATED BY THE WEALTHY WHO OWN YOU!

Hitler’s supposed vegetarianism is a bit more complicated than the popular myth makes it sound.

What the evidence shows:

Contemporary accounts: People close to him (like his secretaries and chefs) said that for much of his later life, especially during and after the late 1930s, he mostly avoided meat. His personal chef, Dione Lucas, mentioned he had a strong aversion to meat dishes and preferred things like mashed potatoes, vegetables, and soups.

Health reasons: Some historians think his diet was influenced more by chronic digestive issues and health concerns than by ethics. He had stomach problems and relied on a personal physician who put him on restrictive diets.

Inconsistencies: Earlier in his life, Hitler did eat meat (including sausages and liver dumplings, which he reportedly liked). There are also accounts suggesting he occasionally broke his vegetarian habits, eating meat broth or even ham.

Propaganda factor: The Nazis liked to portray Hitler as a disciplined, pure-living figure, which included highlighting his supposed vegetarianism, teetotalism, and non-smoking. This was part of building his cult of personality.

Bottom line:

Hitler was not a lifelong vegetarian. From the late 1930s onward, he seems to have mostly avoided meat, but it wasn’t consistent, and it was likely for health and image reasons rather than ethical ones.

Animal welfare under the Nazis:

1933 Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz): Shortly after the Nazis came to power, they passed one of the most progressive animal welfare laws of the time. It restricted vivisection (animal experiments), regulated hunting, banned boiling lobsters alive, and sought to limit animal suffering in slaughter.

Rhetoric: Hitler and other Nazi leaders sometimes spoke about compassion for animals. Hitler himself reportedly said he opposed hunting and vivisection. Hermann Gцring even threatened to send people who violated vivisection rules to concentration camps (though this was more about projecting Nazi “morality” than consistent enforcement).

Reality check: In practice, the laws were inconsistently enforced. They served propaganda purposes — showing Germany as “humane” — while the same regime inflicted horrific cruelty and violence on humans.

Back at you. Don't pretend that any of your arguments are based in reality.

Besides that, it is mostly a difference in principles. I want people to be treated
like human beings, while you see everyone as inherently evil and in need
of constant oppression, to make them useful to society.

Don't you understand that most people don't want to be oppressed?
If you want people to turn violent, oppression is a good method to do so.

At this time, it's mostly right-wing lunatics who do the violence, but if you keep supporting oppression, there will come a time that liberals and lefties will start killing. Your side is already aching for civil war, so that will be the result. Millions will die.
The question is who will fight for oppression and who will fight for freedom.
No matter how it ends, history will always pick the side of freedom.

There are also reports that Robinson’s family is said to have told investigators that he disliked Kirk, partly because Kirk was “not conservative enough”. On the bullet casings he wrote texts that are coming directly from on-line gaming culture, which is currently dominated by right-wingers. The "transgender rhetoric" claim has been debunked.
What we do know is that he grew up in a conservative Mormon gun-loving family.
If he hated their ideology, why didn't he kill his parents?

You're the absolute laziest commenter here.
You are showing that you're just a right-wing loon,
incapable of saying anything even mildly noteworthy.

Do you know any of their friends? Maybe they can help clear it up for you?

Yeah, I know, they all voted for Obama and Kamala Harris.

Weight is just a balance of how much calories go in and how much calories you use. The easiest method of reducing what comes in is eliminating the calories that don't fill you up, like useless sugars and fats. Candy, snacks and sodas are filled with useless sugar and fat. The combination of sugar and fat is highly addictive. If you keep feeding the addiction, it will become worse and worse. Find alternatives for the cravings to conquer the addiction.

The worst you can do is take artificial sweeteners. They tell the brain that something sweet is coming in, creating an insulin spike, lowering the sugar in your blood, because there is no actual sugar coming in. Then the body starts screaming for sugar even louder.

Bananas are just an easy source of potassium and slow sugars (which balance the sugar in your blood). There are other sources of potassium. If there is no potassium food that you like, just buy potassium pills, because potassium is really important if you have hypertension. It can give almost immediate relief. Just don't overdo it, because that's not healthy either.

And just to be sure, I assume you know that salt (sodium) is very bad for you when you have hypertension. You don't have to cut it to zero, because then all food tastes like cardboard, but try to reduce it to the minimum. If you are emptying a bag of potato chips each day, you're killing yourself. Factory food almost always contain lots of salt, sugar, saturated fats or oxidized unsaturated fats. Healthy food is expensive, but if you buy smart and invest time, you can eat much healthier for the same money.
Food factories are turning the cheapest ingredients into PROFIT. They turn unhealthy ingredients into something that people love to eat, by adding sugar, fat and salt,
and feeding the addiction. If you cook for yourself, and be smart about it, you are making money and saving your health.

Does it need to be "necessary"? How about "generally much more preferable than not"?

When I have an infected wound, it's not "necessary" to take antibiotics, but I generally prefer it over cutting out the infection or waiting until I possibly need an amputation.

The chance for anyone to get Covid at some point in life is close to 100%.
The question is: "Do I want to beat it myself or do I want a immunity system head start?"
I think that I would have survived Covid without getting vaccinated, I'm not old and weak, and I generally have a decent immune system. Still, my brother is 4 years younger, and he had Covid before anyone else had it, because he was at the carnival parties in the south of my country, when it first started to spread quickly. He told me that he had never been as sick as that before. He felt very sick for a week, then had a horrible cough for weeks, and 3 months later, he still had trouble walking up a flight of stairs.

After 2 shots, I eventually got Covid. It wasn't fun, but I have had worse flus and migraines that were much worse.
[Before you think that I am saying that Covid is a flu, I'm not. Those are 2 completely different species of viruses. It's just as wrong to say that Covid is Ebola.]
I missed work for a few days, because I didn't feel like working, but I didn't spent any daytime in bed. After I beat those symptoms, I had a bad cough for a week.
What's important to say that I'm overweight and my brother isn't because he does a lot of physical work. There were many UNVACCINATED men of my age and weight who went to the hospital, were put into sleep on a ventilator for sometimes weeks, and lots of them died. More than 1000 men of my age and weight have died. Vaccination reduced that risk by >90%. The risk of severe illness is reduced by about 95%.
So, I had a personal benefit from getting vaccinated.
The general benefit of me getting vaccinated is that I probably missed less working days, when I eventually got sick. I suffered no long-term effects from it. There were hundreds of thousands of people in my country who did suffer long-term effects or
are even still now not fully recovered. That's a burden on society.

I don't know if the mRNA-COVID-19 vaccine saved my life, but it's possible. Many unvaccinated people died, I know several cases from within my circle of acquaintances. I also know people who almost died and people who are still having after effects.
I don't know anyone who died after getting vaccinated, not from Covid and not from side effects of the vaccine. The statistics are in line with the anecdotal evidence around me.

Besides the mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination, I'm vaccinated against Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Pertussis, Measles and Mumps. That's all the standard ones and Mumps at a later age, because I never had it. Those vaccinations were also not necessary to maintain my health or save my life. I never had any of those diseases, except Pertussis, a few years ago for 3 months. The vaccination effect diminishes after 40 years and the bacterium Bordetella pertussis has mutated. After 3 months, the doctor gave me an antibiotic and then it was gone in a week.

Why would you NOT get vaccinated, if all the information shows you that the benefits are much higher than the risk? I looked into all the claims that the mRNA-COVID-19 vaccine was killing people, and I concluded that those claims were either false or unverifiable. Those claims were coming from the same side that was spreading nonsense to people who don't have the knowledge to dismiss the nonsense. When they are telling me that mRNA-vaccines are gene-therapy, I know that to be nonsense.
There is no system in human cells to include mRNA information into our genes.

And that was even the least dumb conspiracy theory. They were saying that there are micro-chips in the vaccines to track you? Why? People are already carrying their surveillance devices in their pocket. Do you think they can make an injectable micro-chip that can do the job better than your smartphone? They claimed that vaccines were a time-bomb to decimate the population. Really? So they want to kill all the people who trust the government and big pharma and kill all the "critical thinkers"? If it's all a big conspiracy, then that vaccine will keep all the obedient people alive, while they kill the "critical thinkers" with the 100% lethal virus. That's much more logical. I'm still waiting, but neither conspiracy turned true yet.

Let me reverse the question: do you only accept medical treatment, when it is necessary to maintain your health and save your life? Did you ever use medication? Was that medication 100% safe? When you take medication, who do you trust that the benefits outweigh the risk? Are those other people than who told you that the mRNA-COVID-19 vaccine is safe? Can they ever prove to you that mRNA vaccines are safe or will you never trust them?

Exactly, murder is murder, and that is not right.

All Democratic politicians are shouting that from the rooftops right now, including all liberal news outlets, and all liberal and lefty channels on YouTube. You really have to search hard and long for a lefty extremist who celebrates Kirk's murder. They exist,
of course, but I've found no one with a big platform.

Have you seen all Republicans say murder is wrong, when a Democrat or liberal
is murdered, or attacked with the intent of murder, with a clear right-wing motive?

All the right-wing media is still blaming the left, while every right-winger with a platform is calling for violence against the left.

They are all hypocrites.

Doctors can give you medicines, which is sometimes necessary,
but only you yourself can improve your health.

Health or lack of it is not just genetic or accidental,
you have a lot of influence over it with food, water, sleep and exercise.

Ask Grok: "What type of diet is best to reduce heart and arteries disease?"

Good food choices for hypertension management include:
Bananas (contain about 420 mg of potassium per piece)
Leafy greens (spinach, kale, Swiss chard)
Beans and lentils
Sweet potatoes
Avocados
Oranges and melons

You can do exercise without spending a cent. It's just a matter of moving some muscles, raising the heartbeat and working up a bit of a sweat.

My hypertension is reaching risky levels too, I've just measured close to 180/100. It's up and down, depending on how I treat my own body. I went to sleep too late, woke up too early, didn't take my supplements, didn't do any exercises, so it's up today. Last week,
I got it down to 140/85, by doing everything right. It's not fun, I would rather eat what I want and I don't like exercises, but heart disease and needles are no fun either.
My doctor isn't giving me any medicine yet. I have to improve my food, water, sleep and exercise, just like I'm telling you. I mainly have to loose weight. Maybe that's not your problem, but the regiment for your health problems is still almost the same.

Hmm, I have never met liberals that can't defend their ideas for very long.
They always know very well what they believe and why.
They always support The Constitution and democracy in general.
All the right-wingers that I meet say that they support The Constitution
and then show they don't know what it means and piss on it.

I heard about that stabbing on the train. That killer has a long history of trying to get mental healthcare, but getting rejected. His family tried to get him committed, but they weren't authorized to do so, according to the authorities. He has even been sent away, when he tried to have himself committed. It was just a matter of time, before he would snap. I don't support putting people who have mental issues away for life, but if they try to get themselves committed, who the fuck is stupid enough to send them away?

A black racist who hates white people, is NOT going to attack some random white girl
on the train. What fucking white privilege does she have? She was in her fastfood job clothes, just like every poor black dude. That kind of racist would attack some elitist looking white dude in a suit, or same racist Karen. You are sick in your head to think an otherwise 'sane' racist would attack some random poor white girl. There are 204.3 million white people in the US, and you think it's 'sane' to attack this one? That's not stupidity, that blind racism. And fuck you up front for saying that's "name calling".

All of the left was rejecting violence, while all of the right was promoting violence
and war on the left. You are just waiting for the right opportunity to finally stick something real on ONE lefty or liberal, so you have a justification to start your war against half of America, the half that actually has "American values".

What 'socialists' get upset about is your president and his ilk immediately blaming
the left, resulting in all right-wingers with some platform on the internet calling for
direct violence and war against the left, before there was even a suspect.

Let's also marvel at the audacity of your FBI Director Kashyap Pramod Patel, who said on national television "This is what happens if you let good cops be cops!". The fucking FBI had nothing to do with his capture. They didn't catch him, the killer admitted to his crime to his father, and his father TURNED HIM IN. Then Patel had the people wait
in suspense for NINE HOURS, because he needed to give Trump his time on TV.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox was very open about his feelings: "For 33 hours, I was,
I was praying that, that, if this had to happen here, that it wouldn't be one of us,
that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country.
Sadly, that that, prayer was not answered the way I had hoped for. Just because I thought it would make it easier on us, if we could just say, hey we don't do that here."

Clearly saying that he had prayed that it was someone from a blue state or a country with brown people. He doesn't want his prejudices to be exposed, after he called it
a political assassination and emphasized that Charlie Kirk was a Trump supporter.
No, he prayed that it was the people he hates, so he could propagate that hate
with a tiny sliver of justification.
Good of him to be so honest.

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement that typically includes:
- Authoritarian leadership – a dictatorial leader who claims to embody the national will.
- Ultranationalism – placing the nation (or a specific ethnic/racial group) above all else.
- Militarism and violence – belief in violence, war, and discipline as national “rebirth”.
- Anti-liberalism and anti-democracy – rejection of liberal democracy, pluralism, and individual rights.
- Suppression of dissent – censorship, propaganda, and control of media.
- Corporatism/economic control – strong state direction of the economy while retaining private property, with close coordination between state, industry, and labor (as opposed to socialism or free-market liberalism).
- Mythic past & cult of tradition – glorification of a supposedly pure or heroic past.
- Mass mobilization – use of rallies, symbols, uniforms, and paramilitary groups to create unity and loyalty.

That fits Trump and MAGA 100%. If Charlie Kirk's killer was a fascist, than he was definitely not on the left, but on the extreme right. Charlie Kirk was obviously pretty far to the right, but your actual Nazis, like Nick Fuentes and all his groypers, didn't like Charlie Kirk at all. They just spew hate about him, while the left argues against him.

I have seen Charlie Kirk refuse to answer many questions, he ignores almost all questions. You are not smart enough to understand the difference between puking up talking points and actually answering questions. You are unable to answer questions yourself.

Thank you. Yes, I'm born and raised in the Netherlands.
I work in a company that uses a lot of English documentation, so I write mostly in English. Also, since a few years, many expats entered the company, who don't speak Dutch. At work and on Teams, I talk English more often than Dutch.
My logical thinking skills are also related to my work, because I have followed courses for Process Excellence, different root cause analysis and problem solving methods.
I have been programming since I was 8, gained an interest in philosophy at 30, with a specialized interest in logical argumentation and the opposite: fallacies. I am an atheist, but not for lack of taking an interest in religion. I got there through logic. If there is a god, I'm not content in just believing the religion of the area that I was accidentally born in. That god might be more annoyed by believing the wrong religion, than not believing in any. Why would the creator of the universe create logic and then expect us to ignore it and believe primitive nonsense?

She calls the murdered person 'random', because it is just one of many murder victims,
but you only care about a tiny few that you can say were killed by an illegal.
Illegals commit crime at a much lower rate than natural born citizens.

Charly Kirk referred to school shooting victims as "worth it".

Read up, there were no transgender texts on his gun or casings, that has been proven to be a lie. There was something that could be considered anti-fascist on the casings.
But that text was more related to gaming culture. Gaming isn't political.
There also was an anti-gay text on one of the cases.

The story that it was "the left" is falling apart.
You should have known that, when you saw his shirt.
He was brought up in a gun loving religious family.



True, guns don't kill people by themselves, but your gun-culture makes people crazy, and crazy people do kill people. That was indeed very similar to the Trump attempt.

A good explanation of Survivorship Bias and why ignoring it is a risk.
only registered users can see external links

I won't call myself a hero around needles.
It's not the needle that I fear, it's the sting.

It's because of a few bad experiences. It was for a work health checkup once. That needle to draw blood thicker than usual. We always have a survey after the checkup,
so I complained about that needle hurting. They got back to me and told me that no one had ever complained about it ( ), but that they would look into it.

Another time was during the Covid pandemic. There was a shortage of needles, so they used every Eastern European drain-pipe that they could find. The first and third jab were fine, but the second was very much not nice. It still hurt minutes after.

This video is 4 years old, but when I saw it I felt so sorry for him.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links

Thank you very much.

I can confirm that I never had the same “error message” in the brain, for a woman
who acts, dresses or even looks like a man. Over the years, we had friend circles that included gay men and lesbian women. We also got to meet their friend. One or two of the friends of the gay men gave me a few of those “error messages”, but the friend circles of the lesbian women never did. Don't you think that is strange?

I don't think it's societal, it must be something biological, but it's so strange that a woman feels it the same, for the same people, as a man. Overtly gay behavior is exaggerated feminine behavior. Drag queens are dressing and putting make-up on to create an exaggerated feminine look, with big tits, big butts and big red lips. That should only cause an "error" in the brain of a straight man, because it is attractive to straight men. Why would this cause an "error" in the brain of a straight woman? Straight women shouldn't be attracted to exaggerated femininity? However, butch lesbians are appropriating masculine behavior and looks. That should be attractive to straight woman. Why would that not result in an “error message” in their brain?

I am sure it's related to attraction, because I have had similar feelings, that I wouldn't really describe as an "error", but more like a "siren". I had that feeling in the sauna, when we were in a hot-tub with several people. There was one beautiful brown women that had already caught my attention, but I acted cool. But then she stood up to leave, passing along with her perfect ass about a foot from my nose, giving me direct view of her shaved pussy. Calling it a "siren" in my brain is an understatement. Can your head explode, without anyone noticing? I think I managed it.
I got a similar "siren", but only DEFCON 3, not DEFCON 1, when a very good looking woman showed me how to lay down on an x-ray machine. I was sitting on a chair next
to it and she lay down in a fetal position, making her tight jeans work very nicely together with her lower body, at very close proximity.
I accept the similarity of the brain "errors" and brain "sirens", as good evidence that
they are both related to my biological attraction.

Yes, imagine the horror for everyone at that event, including his wife and kids. What am I talking about, that's empathy, maybe even sympathy. You don't care for that. Charlie Kirk himself said "I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that - it does a lot of damage.". So let's not tarnish his memory, by granting him an 'emotion', that he spoke out against.

There are many people speaking publicly, every day, all over your country. If you want
to provide security to all of them, it will require a very substantial budget increase.

That's not your country's priority right now, Trump has just pushed through major cuts
to your government spending, to give tax-cuts to the wealthy.

Trump increased the budget of ICE from $8.7 billion to $28.7 billion. They are not security for speakers.

The deployment of over 4,900 military personnel to LA, including 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines, cost approximately $118 million, which doesn't provide security for speakers.

Deployments in DC have been estimated to cost nearly $1 million per day, which doesn't provide security for speakers.

The Trump administration's budget proposal includes a $545 million cut to the FBI's funding, which doesn't help if they need to catch a shooter. He also appointed very dumb podcast hosts to lead the FBI and fired many highly experienced agents, because they were black or didn't like him very much.

Trump proposed 29% funding reduction in ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives), which undermines efforts to prevent violent crime.

The Trump administration has cut $3.5 million from Community Policing Programs that foster collaboration between law enforcement and community leaders to address violent crime.

By the way, Utah is an open and concealed carry state. Utah does not require background checks for private firearm sales or transfers. Utah does not have a "cooling-off" period.
If you see that there is some political speaker in your town, but you don't have a gun,
you can buy it that day, carry it on your back to the target site legally, and no police has
a reason to ask what you're doing, up to the moment that you point the gun at your victim. It's a bit more difficult to do that in some other states. But, of course, it's not the guns.
The US just has more bad or crazy people and it's just a complete coincidence that
the US also allows (much easier) access to sniper rifles or heavy assault rifles and the ability to train with them to be proficient enough to shoot someone from 200 yards away.

I understand the confusion. I am woke as fuck, but even I am confused sometimes.
A co-worker is a manly, but slender guy with long hair and a mustache.
Sometimes he wears manly clothes and sometimes he wears women's clothes.
He doesn't behave any different, but sometimes he just wears a dress and feminine ear-rings, like big red, orange or pink ones. That confused me. I didn't let him or anyone else notice, because I value his right to wear whatever he wants, without raising uncalled attention. Of course there is a dress code, so he shouldn't walk around in just a leather harness or something. He's just a gentlemen dressed as a lady, without in any other way pretending to be one. That confuses me. I have so many questions. However, that is none of my business, so I don't ask. If it doesn't come up in conversation, and he doesn't show any desire to talk about it, then I don't think I have a right to know all about his personal opinions or feelings.
Would I say I'm bothered? A bit, because my curiosity is not answered to, but other than that I have no negative feelings about it. I do have very positive feelings about him being accepted like he is.

I don't think society will ever progress to a state in which no one even notices anymore. Most of us have the standard sexual identity and attraction wired into our brains. That results in behavior and feelings which are consistent with the standard biology. Society might learn to more accept the biological variations, but people with standard biology will never appropriate those biological variations, even though some people are very worried that it's happening. People didn't all start writing with their left hand, when left-handedness got accepted. We are not all trying to do that, to fit in with the minority. We just accept it from others. People still say "Oh, are you left-handed?".

If I read correctly, the only thing you are bothered about is being bothered about it?
What is the feeling that you get when you are near them? When I first saw my co-worker,
it resulted in a feeling that I would describe as an 'error message' in my brain. I wouldn't say it bothered me, but I noticed some discomfort. I was still able to have a normal conversation with him. He never talked about pronouns, so I just call him 'him'. But, I wouldn't call him 'him' to his face, when he wears women's clothes, without raising the subject. It just didn't come up yet. That discomfort is gone now. I am always interested
in what he's wearing that day though, which I couldn't care less about for anyone else.

I did have such an 'error message' in my brain before, but a much more urgent one.
Years back, we went to an erotic fair, for the second or third time. That year, they had drag queens as greeters, they call themselves 'door bitches'. These ones were over the top, very tall, and I would say sexy too. They made me shy, and that doesn't happen a lot.
One of them made a kiss in my direction and said: "Hi honey!", in a very low voice.
That resulted in an 'error message' in my brain, of the likes last seen on Windows ME.
One part of my brain was filling my dick with blood and the other part of it screamed
"IT'S A GUY!!!!!". Interesting feeling. I hope I didn't show it too much.

I agree, violence has no place in politics.
Like him or not, agree with him or not, he was supportive of the marketplace of ideas
and willing to debate everyone.

There's just one thing though, just because he was active in politics, doesn't mean
that this was political violence. Remember the attempt on Trump's life?
All of the right-wing pointed fingers at the left, but it turned out to be just another lunatic.
When he turned out to be a right-winger, you lot either shut-up immediately or you kept blaming the left somehow. Some even kept saying that he was a lefty of liberal.
Can you wait with pointing fingers, until you have evidence?

And another thing: the same day that Charlie Kirk was murdered, there was another school shooting. Only the shooter is dead and 2 kids were wounded, but you know
how often this turns out worse. It hardly gets any coverage from the news anymore.
Do you think that political commentators have more right to be safe than children?
Charlie Kirk never empathized with school shooting victims. He calls them 'worth it'.
I support his right to say these horrible things, but I don't think that people like him
should be immune from the danger that children suffer each day, because of his ideas.
Care about all the victims, not just your preferred political commentators.

On August 8, 2025, DeKalb County Police Officer David Rose was killed by Patrick Joseph White, a shooter who fired at the CDC complex in Atlanta. White, who died by suicide after the attack, expressed deep discontent with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, believing they had harmed him and others. The incident, which involved over 500 rounds of ammunition, heightened anxiety and trauma among CDC workers and prompted calls for improved protections for public health employees. I didn't hear anyone talk about this, here.
That's a proven politically inspired murder and mass murder attempt. Does anyone care?

Sure, so you could tell the company to transition from those Koreans to Americans.
They would respect that. They won't respect sending in ICE to threaten their employees, by calling them 'illegals', while your regime is kidnapping people who are often illegitimately called 'illegals' to concentration camps. That makes your business associates nervous and rethinking their relationship with you.

I worked in a cleanroom for 10 years, only keeping on my underpants and dressing in working clothes for everything else. I'm not against uniforms, if and when they serve
a purpose. If they don't, the demands should be minimized to employees being representational, within a broad societal standard. Many employees are not dealing with customers. As long as employees maintain collegiality, there is no reason for employers to take even more of our personal freedoms away.

Are only women "hollaring they can't get a job"? Do only women need to look in the mirror? Are only good looking people allowed to make money? Why would women more than men be whining and pissing and moaning and wanting government help?
They are already better educated than men in the US. They want to be useful.
They want to be valued for their skills and actions. Their body is not for everyone.
The funny thing is that if a woman actually does achieve something, you accuse them of having used sex to get what she has. They need to walk a tight rope, to please you.
I'm expecting some MAGA chick to suck and fuck herself to the top and you happily voting her in for president.

The law works as fast as freedom allows. If you want it to work faster,
that requires more money.

We differ in opinion on what abuse of social safety nets would be.
To me, they are a tool to achieve more equality, to benefit everyone.
For as much as you are referring to real fraud, that's mostly a lie from people who want to destroy social safety nets.

Parents are not the only ones who should have freedom in education and religion, so should children. Children should be protected from the most extreme delusions of their parents, whether they may be extremely religious, extremely conservative or extremely 'woke'. Your views are not the average of the American public, so education shouldn't just bow to your will. The choice should be limited to at maximum varying mildly around the middle.

Private schools only provide better quality at much higher costs. Most people cannot afford that, so public education should be the standard.

What reason do you have to add corrupt to 'socialist government in charge'? Your capitalist system is incredibly corrupt.

You still don't fucking understand the term 'socialist'.
You still think it's the same as 'communist'. Will you ever learn?

The term 'socialist' means owned and controlled by ALL the people.
The term 'communist' means owned and controlled by the government.
The term 'capitalist' means owned and controlled by a wealthy minority.

In both communism and capitalism, the people are trusting a minority to handle their best interests, in socialism we maximize democratic control
to best serve our interests by means of compromise. That means that I would trust YOU more to find a solution together, than I trust some ruling elites to power over me. That reduces the division in a country, because the elites intentionally divide the people, to serve themselves.

Private schools are capitalist schools. They are owned by companies, investors or wealthy owners. The owners control and shape it to serve THEM, not the people for who it is intended. That's corruption, by definition.

Socialist education would mean that we all pay for it through taxes. We all have a voice in how to shape it, so it benefits all of us. We, the people, will prevent it from getting corrupted, with our combined voice.

I DON'T trust the government. I am not a communist, I am a SOCIALIST.
I trust that people can work out their problems best together, instead of handing over our power to one dictator or a group of ruling elites.
That's because one person or a small group of people can inflict too much damage with that power. We cannot of course do politics with 17 million (or in your case 330 million) people. So, we need representatives to make compromises for all of us, to solve problems effectively. And we keep a damn close eye on them, so they don't abuse their power.

The same applies to the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Guns are too powerful in the hands of the random person.
They can inflict too much damage with it.
So, we need representatives to protect our safety. And we keep a damn close eye on them, so they don't abuse their power.

You don't have to agree, but it would be nice if you understood.

"several others of that list are wrong"
The politicians who you elected are doing exactly what I said.

And that's where your wrong. Do you still care about The Constitution?

Article I

Section 9

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Section 10

"No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law..."

Article III

Section 2

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Section 3

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Amendments

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Amendment VI

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Amendment VIII

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Amendment XIII, Section 1

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Amendment XIV, Section 1

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Tight clothes are not comfortable. They would obviously be more comfortable with baggy clothes. However, that's not the point of this outfit. This is intended to attract men who like looking at sexy women, dressed in sexy clothes, which is good for business and I'm sure helps tipping. I have no problem with that, because it's just this one company doing it. It's a way for attractive women to monetize their looks, if they are indeed comfortable doing that or the rewards outweigh their discomfort with it. That might be older than the invention of fire. Modern technology provides even more of an ability to cash-in on good looks, on the 'medias of social' or Onlyfans. It of course depends on the comfort they have with various levels of advertising their assets on how much money they can make with it. It varies from a tiny increase in revenue from boosting other skills with a sexy outfit, to blowing up the revenue, without many other skills needed, with selling pure porn. It basically comes down to the dilemma of how much gratification a woman is willing to provide to men, in exchange for the rewards associated with that level,
which is also related to their attractiveness.

It seems to be your opinion that all women should be willing to monetize their looks,
at least to some extend, if they have the assets to do so. Am I correct?
Do you think that there is something wrong with them, if they don't like that?
Do you think that women are defective somehow, if they don't like attention to their
sexual attractiveness, from customers or co-workers? That would be strange for me, considering you come from a country full of extremist Christians, with very puritanical beliefs, who are generally more allied with your side of politics than mine.

Or is it your opinion that all employers should be able to monetize the looks of their employees, by picking a dress-code that enhances their sexual attractiveness?
Personally, I'm not a fan of prudishness, but I think that a society should respect personal beliefs, as long as people don't force them onto others. In the case of women, that is related to their own choice in how much they want to advertise their sexual attractiveness. They should not be forced to do anything else than what they choose for themselves. If women want any attention to their sexual attractiveness in the workplace, they should have the freedom to chose from multiple employers, to dress the way they want, within reason. Employers should of course be free to have standards for employees being representational, within a broad societal standard.

“True freedom is a balance between all our individual desires and the common good.”

You are the fearful one, not me. I forego the ability to defend myself with easy lethal force, for more safety for everyone. I would still defend my family, with the tools that are available to me. Guns are undeniably resulting in more danger to everyone in your country. I want my government to restrict them, so we are all safer. Your FEELING of safety results in actual danger. You can keep denying it, but that's just delusional or dishonest, depending on if you actually believe it. I think you don't.

The ideas you help to spread and normalize are an inspiration
to many crazies, who do lots of harm.
Those ideas helped elect Trump, who is doing lots of harm.
You are supporting a genocide.
You are supporting Putin's propaganda, to further his imperialist goals.
You are supporting the kidnapping of innocent people to prison camps.
You are supporting arbitrary detention of vulnerable people.
You are supporting the elimination of healthcare for many people.
You are supporting the return of almost eradicated infectious diseases.
You are supporting the cancellation of crucial medical research.
You are supporting that under@ge r@pe victims don't get justice.
You are supporting government control over women's bodies.
You are supporting the destruction of a social safety net that many people rely on.
You are supporting the destruction of an independent constitutional state.
You are supporting the destruction of free and fair elections.
You are supporting the destruction of freedom of speech.
You are supporting the destruction of independent education.
You are supporting the destruction of just plain old decency in politics.

"the crazys about out number the sane"
A fitting explanation for Trump's presidency.

What's the educational/informational purpose of this video?
She looks hot in that 'uniform'. Still, the name of the restaurant is a bit misleading.
It doesn't really deliver on what it's advertising.

I have heard about this from our news. Those were not 'illegals', those were
highly qualified engineers, who were approved on business licenses.

The company that I work for sends people to the US for projects too, sometimes
for a longer period. They use business licenses like that too. The argument that your Trump regime is making is that these highly qualified engineers were not doing 'business', but 'work'. What a dumb argument. The company is doing 'business' and everyone who works for them is doing 'work', even the fucking CEO.

South Korea is one of your best business partners.
Are you going to push them away too?
They are turning to China as we speak.