Started by tecsan at 13,Sep,22 07:10 other posts of tecsan
 | Your views, thoughts or simply opinions. The Economy is not well (understatement). I know there are some here that will try to link the country they are residing in as problems of the USA. Sorry the USA cannot be responsible for 100% of the problems in the world nor should they be expected to help repair all problems. |
Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅
only registered users can see external links
Trump speaks exclusively in 'child mode'.
only registered users can see external links
Shouldn't be any problem with the french
only registered users can see external links
By the way, the UK ain't Europe no more, remember?
The UK split, because they are very much like the US.
They preferred to split with the EU and increase cooperation with the US.
And now they are hurting from it, and not gaining much from relations with the US.
They did become more like the US though. Their depth and severity of poverty have drastically worsened. The UK is not yet as bad as the US, when it comes to overall poverty, but it is closer to the US than almost any other Western European country.
Immigration was one of the major issues in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign.
The Reform Party, Nigal Farage, was one of the main instigators.
And when Brexit happened, that invalidated EU–UK Cooperation Agreements.
That indeed reduced EU immigration, but non-EU immigration increased significantly.
Net migration rose substantially after Brexit.
The UK and France going to war, would result in a perpetual stalemate.
Both countries are nuclear powers, by the way.
only registered users can see external links
"One of the bad ideas to come out of that war was the set of rules that punished a mother for keeping a man in the house and rewarded her financially for having more children without one. We called this assistance while fatherlessness shot through the roof. What it really was was an incentive to break up the family. And it worked, as generation after generation was born into this life of dependency. It wasn’t because these families were weak, but because the system promoted dependency as the safest and most responsible choice a mother could make."
Billions of your tax-dollars go to Elon Musk, to play with rockets.
What you are doing is CREATING lives of dependency.
When all the jobs are replaced by robots, who buys the products?
If no one is making an income, then they cannot buy anything.
Without people buying anything, the robots are useless.
That will require a Universal Basic Income, to save the economy.
It will mean that EVERYONE will live a life of dependency.
Sadly we do have a welfare state. So many people sit at home and do nothing but draw checks.you think it is rumor,but we Americans in the real world here see it every day. Abuse of the systems designed to help those in Actual Need and not self created need,like dope heads and such.
The best way to reduce birth rates is to provide vaccines, so people have more chance that their children survive. If they can have less mouths to feed, they will do it.
High child mortality → high birth rates
Child mortality falls → birth rates eventually fall
If you want women to pump out less babies, then you give them an alternative future, than just being a mother. Don't overdo it, by forcing all women to work, just to make a living, because then you are taking away the option of people to be parents, resulting
in population decline.
Many welfare recipients are children, elderly people, disabled people, or working adults with low incomes. Some benefits are temporary and some have work requirements. Fraud exists, but it is generally a small fraction of total spending.
The US's welfare system is actually limited compared with most European countries. Raising the minimum wage would make most poverty compensations unnecessary.
Your drugs problem is not a cause of your welfare system. Most European countries have more generous welfare systems than the US, but your drugs problem is worse than all of Europe's.
The Democratic Socialists of America released its official 2026 political program, titled "Workers Deserve More," in July 2026. The platform outlines radical structural changes to the U.S. government alongside major social welfare and economic reforms.Government and Constitutional OverhaulAbolish institutions: Eliminating the U.S. Senate, the Electoral College, and national borders.Restructure power: Replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court with leaders chosen directly by Congress, and rewriting a new U.S. constitution.Voting rights: Granting voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents.Economic and Social ReformsAbolish capitalism: Placing major industries, health care, housing, and energy under public ownership or control.Public goods: Eliminating private debt, mortgages, and healthcare costs through universal social programs.Criminal justice and defense: Defunding the Pentagon and completely abolishing the prison system and ICE.
So criminals would roam the streets along side illegal aliens, the people would have no say in who's their leader, no one would own anything, our military essentially neutered. what the fuck would be left?
Yes, they intend to abolish ICE immediately, because it is literally the "jackbooted thugs" force that your side warned about for decades. That doesn't mean that illegal aliens will roam the streets, because they will all get to document for LEGAL stay, a green card or apply for citizenship.
They believe many of the forces driving migration are caused or worsened by global economic inequality, climate change, and U.S. foreign policy. They advocate policies they believe would reduce the need for people to migrate, such as reducing military intervention abroad, supporting workers' rights internationally, and addressing climate change.
If you stop fucking up other countries, people will want to stay there.
Like how I don't want to come to the US, because I'm happy and doing well in my country.
How about a vision of actually improving life for everyone?
What is your idea? Making the US suck so much that no one wants to be there?
It's working! Soon you will need that border wall to keep people IN!
"What the fuck would be left?" You have just described your country as private debt, mortgages, healthcare costs, prisons, the military and ICE. When that is taken away,
nothing would be left. Think about that. Are those the things that define America?
NO prisons needed? Ha are you kidding? Smoking some of that fairy dust now are we? There will always be killers and thugs that your sweet words and candy pills can't fix. they will need to be kept locked safely away from your other citizens that will be unable to defend themselves for the lack of guns and knives and common sense.
example,
Apprehensions of Chinese nationals at the southern border escalated sharply from a few hundred a year to tens of thousands annually, making them one of the fastest-growing demographics arriving at the border
At least the DSA is willing to TRY something different than repression. Maybe they won't succeed in making prisons obsolete, but they might be able to lower the need to the average of European countries. Do you have any idea of the cost savings and benefits, if young people are working good jobs, instead of wasting their lives in prisons?
'They' don't SEND people to the US. People LEAVE their countries, looking for something better. This is the ranking of nationalities that were coming to the US in 2024:
1. Mexico (proximity, Economics)
2. Venezuela (Economic collapse)
3. Guatemala (Poverty, violence)
4. Honduras (Poverty, violence)
5. El Salvador (Economics)
6. Colombia (Economics)
7. Ecuador (Economic insecurity)
8. Cuba (Political repression)
9. Nicaragua (Authoritarian rule)
10. China (Economics, repression)
Yes, China entered your top 10, because of Covid and Trump's trade war. China pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, by making lots of cheap products for the West. Then they started making better and better stuff, and created competition for the West. That's a threat to our way of life, so we started to push back. Is that fair? That depends on your principles. If you believe in unregulated free trade capitalism, thinking that's the best system, you shouldn't feel threatened by competition from an authoritarian state-capitalist country.
We have a similar immigration problem in Europe, with some different countries:
1. Syria (Civil war)
2. Afghanistan (Conflict, Taliban)
3. Ukraine (Russian invasion)
4. Venezuela (Economic collapse)
5. Tьrkiye (Politics, economy)
6. Colombia (Economics)
7. Morocco (Economics)
8. Bangladesh (Economics)
9. Pakistan (Economics)
10. Mali (Conflict, poverty)
Some people DO try to send their women and children to safety. They are denied
at your borders just the same. To get to Europe, many of them need a boat. Thousands of them drown. There are maritime patrols to try to save them before that happens.
However, there was just an invasion of Moroccans in Ceuta, a Spanish exclave bordering Morocco directly. All those people were saying that there are no jobs in Morocco that they can live on. There is no evidence that the Moroccan government organized or sent these migrants. It can be traced back to a social media mobilization.
"fight for their own countries to be safe and prosperous"? Tell me what that looks like. Literal fighting? Should they pick up guns and fight their government? That's called
"Civil war". It has worked sometimes. In the short term, in Syria, it created only more devastation and the resulting immigrant wave. I hope they succeed in creating something better than they had.
In the current global market, countries cannot win on capitalism. They will only get exploited by the West. China made incredible gains with STATE controlled capitalism.
The result is huge mega factories, in which the lights can be turned off, because robots do all the work. It generated income for the state, resulting in other more welfare and investments that do help people, which is beating your crony capitalism, but it doesn't make people free and independent. It's still centralized power and centralized wealth. For all people to do well, that requires (more) equality in both power and wealth.
And if the wealthy and powerful people don't share, people will need to keep fleeing
from horrible places, looking for a better future.
The following diseases have surged as RFK Jr and Trump have cut public health and pushed vaccine disinformation: —Measles
—Flu
—Rotavirus
—Whooping cough
—Ebola
—Hantavirus
—Cyclosporiasis
—E. Coli
—Campylobacteriosis
—Listeria
—Cryptosporidiosis
—Infant botulism
Imagine the costs to society. This is a classic case of 'False economy'.
[A false economy is when you cut spending to save money in the short term,
but the cuts end up costing far more in the long run]
The damages of this cut can run up into the many billions of dollars in:
• Healthcare spending: Emergency room visits, hospitalizations, ICU care, physician visits, medications, rehabilitation
• Lost productivity: Sick workers miss work, parents stay home with ill children, long recovery periods
• School disruptions: Student absences, temporary closures, additional staffing and sanitation costs
• Public health response: Contact tracing, laboratory testing, vaccination campaigns, quarantine monitoring
• Business disruption: Restaurants, farms, food processors, and retailers lose revenue during outbreaks or recalls
• Long-term disability: Neurological damage, chronic kidney disease, hearing loss, other lifelong complications requiring ongoing care
The following damages are already involved with just the Cyclospora Outbreak:
✅ Nationwide food recalls — Yes. Multiple iceberg lettuce products have been voluntarily recalled and removed from the U.S. market.
✅ Destruction of agricultural products — Very likely. Recalled produce is removed from sale and typically destroyed rather than redistributed.
✅ Restaurant/business losses — Yes. Taco Bell experienced reduced customer traffic and launched promotions to rebuild consumer confidence. A supplier also temporarily shut a processing facility.
✅ Consumer loss of confidence — Yes. This has been widely reported, with restaurants and retailers taking steps to reassure customers.
You can only wait before the next costs come in:
• Lawsuits
• Lost exports
• Restaurant closures
It just another example of the complete incompetence of this regime.
A killer virus might be the only hope for humanity.
China really fucked up with their pansy virus.
And with RFK Jr. at the helm, now is the perfect time.
Благодаря товарищу Трампу мы их достаточно подготовили.
Vaccines are an evil plot from the Illuminati y'all!
There's no end to what homo sapiens has done. It multiplies fast, the number of people is growing exponentially and this is not sustainable.
Nature has her ways of controlling herself. Currently, homo sapiens behave as an aggressive super agent against the very body that hosts them. Viruses may be a solution.
But it would be nice if viruses attacked first the super aggressive members of the home sapiens species: the billionaires, the politicians, the war mongers, the gun loving people, and every aggressor. A targeted virus. Not realistic, I know.
They are always the first ones to get the vaccines.
And then they tell the stupid people to fear them.
Crop-destroying insects brought in from overseas include the spotted lanternfly, brown marmorated stink bug, and emerald ash borer. These invasive pests arrive through international cargo, wooden packing materials, and imported produce, posing severe threats to local agriculture and native plant life
parasites brought in from overseas typically enter through international travel, imported food, or migration, common examples being Cyclospora, New World screwworm, and intestinal worms
Ok so how is it RFK's fault mexicans brought shit over during the biden admin?
Also, did RFK have a affect on Australia?
Similar issues there.
only registered users can see external links
Stop blaming those you don't like and start looking at the real cause of a problem. Fault is everywhere
You all claim that under Biden more immigrants entered your country than ever in history, but you DIDN'T have all those outbreaks THEN. It happens under Trump, who claims that he is delivering the most secure border in American history. Your own side is literally destroying your argument.
Mexico is improving its standards for food safety, you are doing the opposite. The FDA was the standard for the whole world, but MAGA has decided to crack down on it.
You are turning yourself into a shit-hole country incredibly rapidly.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Apparently she encourages black people to live amoung themselves but is to good to live around a bunch of blacks herself?
Maybe that's what YOU want, but Kamala Harris supports that black people have
equal opportunity and freedom of choice in where they live, NOT racial separation.
She has the opportunity to buy a mansion, so she did. And it's a fact of the continuing systemic racism in the US, that there aren’t many majority-black neighborhoods made up of large luxury estates.
She never was some idol of the left. She's just a centrist neoliberal. I told you that.
She would just have been 100x better than Trump. She would have done none of the stupid things Trump is doing, she wouldn't be destroying democracy, she would arrest criminal immigrants in an orderly fashion and not overflow cities with a masked invasion force murdering American citizen. She would have restored Obama's Iran deal, and she would NOT steal from the poor to give to the wealthy. She would invest in renewable energy and electric cars, so you don't lose to China. She would have made your life
a bit better every single day, and you would have hated her for it.
There would have been many better candidates than Harris, but Biden didn't keep his promise to be a one term president, which resulted in Harris as the candidate. Still, if I was able to vote in the US, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat, but as I also explained,
I would vote for a potted plant over Trump. The potted plant would be useless, but that's better than someone who combines more vices in one single personality than anyone
I've ever seen.
Alan Ritchson goes NUCLEAR on Donald Trump
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
To the EU, the US is an 'unclean place', because many of your food products don't live up to our standards for quality and safety. Due to Trump's cuts on the FDA and deregulation of food standards, I expect more (or all) your products to be banned by the EU.
Those cuts to the FDA might become VERY EXPENSIVE.
It's not just food either, the whole of the EU is working hard to find new suppliers
for EVERYTHING that you are selling.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
The EU is investing in European alternatives to reduce strategic dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly in critical sectors where American companies currently dominate. Priority areas include:
• AI
• Cloud computing
• Semiconductors
• Defense
• Energy
• Telecommunications
• Critical raw materials
• Pharmaceuticals
• Banking and payments
• Space
• Software
• Logistics and shipping
• Chemicals
• Aviation
• Food and agriculture
The EU is one of the United States' largest trading and investment partners, so if Europe succeeds in replacing a significant share of American products and services in strategic industries, many U.S. companies will lose market share and future growth opportunities.
Nothing is as profitable as a monopoly, and you will lose the monopoly on many products and services.
You wanted us to be dependent on you for fuel and defense. It has been your governments priority for decades to keep us dependent. The EU is fully independent for food. We don't need any of your products. We will be independent on energy, when we speed up the energy transition.
In 2024, the US exported $12.8–$12.9 billion in U.S. agricultural exports to the EU, while the EU exported $32–33 billion to the US. Because a significant share of US agricultural production is located in regions that are increasingly affected by climate change, such as drought, heat stress, water scarcity, and extreme weather events, the US may become more reliant on imports of food products in the future.
The U.S. government has expanded climate-related agricultural funding in recent years. The Inflation Reduction Act included billions of dollars for climate-smart agriculture, conservation, and rural resilience programs.
The Trump administration has moved to reduce or reshape some of the climate-related agricultural programs, especially those created or expanded under the Biden administration. The USDA under Trump canceled the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a roughly $3 billion program created under Biden. The Inflation Reduction Act had provided about $19.5 billion in additional funding for USDA conservation programs. The Trump administration has sought to redirect priorities away from what it calls "climate" programs.
you're literally going against what you believe are direct instructions from God.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Nixon, a Republican president, did this:
• Created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Signed the Clean Air Act amendments
• Signed the Endangered Species Act
• Signed the Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Supported affirmative action through the Philadelphia Plan
• Expanded Social Security benefits
• Created Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
• Proposed universal health insurance
• Proposed a guaranteed minimum income (Family Assistance Plan)
• Imposed wage and price controls to combat inflation
Now you have a president who broke it all down and pushes right-wing conspiracy theories.
So, I am asking you; is Elon really THAT DUMB, or just a fucking LIAR?
only registered users can see external links
He wiped the smirk right off his face.
so the people can replace Mitch McConnell with a Democrat.
Mitch McConnell is obviously DEAD, and they are obstructing democracy, in his 'honor'.
Ask yourself what Mitch McConnell would do.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Half of MAGA would love everything he said, if it was explained to them,
without telling them that it was the DSA platform. If you tell em that it's Trump's new plans, they would cheer for it as the best plans that he ever came up with.
He has to read it in a certain tone, to make you understand that you are supposed to
NOT like it.
"a multi-party democracy"
OMG, how many of them turned MAGA for hating the 2-party system?
So sad that no one who is still MAGA is smart enough to see through his D-tier acting.
Damn, the Trump administration is DEI for stupid incompetent white boys.
only registered users can see external links
that Republicans/MAGA are spouting.
And when they leave, it's because they see that it's nothing but bullshit.
There are no poor or middle class Americans who switch from blue to red
for legitimate reasons. It's either ill-conceived selfishness, bigotry or racism.
If you don't think so, find me one who provides decent reasoning.
you could stand to be a little more humble.
only registered users can see external links
The Tates are now fighting extradition from the US to the UK, after being arrested in the US, for 59 criminal charges;
Andrew Tate: 42 charges
Tristan Tate: 17 charges
The allegations include, among other things:
• r@pe,
• sexual assault,
• actual bodily harm (assault causing injury),
• arranging/facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation,
• offences relating to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography.
Apparently, the Tates and Trump's friend circles overlap at Mar-a-Lago, and Barron Trump is friends with the Tates. They all express admiration for each other.
Find me 1 Democrat who hangs around with r@pists and pe.dos as much as Trump.
only registered users can see external links
Who can do better? I bet you can't, without making up shit.
only registered users can see external links
Victoria Hearst on Trauma, Politics, and Texas
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Corporate Capitulation (Big Business Wins):
The core of your argument is that modern American media outlets are no longer independent watchdogs; they are small cogs inside massive, soulless conglomerates. When faced with a choice between defending a journalistic principle or securing a multi-billion-dollar merger, corporate executives will always choose the money. For Paramount and ABC, paying a $31 million settlement to Trump was not a legal defeat, but a minor transaction fee to protect their corporate transactions from political interference.
The "Erdoğan Method":
The strategy used against US media mirrors the exact playbook Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used to dismantle Turkey’s independent press throughout the 2000s and 2010s. Erdoğan did not simply shut down all critical newspapers by decree; he weaponized the state apparatus to force them into submission.
The parallels to the Trump administration's tactics are striking:
• Regulatory Chantage (Blackmail): Erdoğan famously used aggressive tax audits, massive fines, and state regulatory bodies to financially cripple media conglomerates (like the Doğan Media Group) that published critical coverage. In the US, Trump and his allies utilized the FCC and antitrust regulators as leverage, threatening to block vital corporate mergers until the parent companies capitulated.
• Forced Weaponized Consolidation: Once Erdoğan broke the financial back of independent media owners, those outlets were systematically sold off to pro-government oligarchs and crony conglomerates. This mirrors the current rapid consolidation in the US, where the government waves through unprecedented mega-mergers, like the $111 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery deal, effectively placing major networks like CNN and CBS into the hands of a few compliant corporate entities.
• Incentivized Self-Censorship: Under Erdoğan, Turkish media oligarchs quickly realized that keeping their lucrative state contracts required neutering their own newsrooms. Similarly, US media giants now practice preemptive self-censorship, settling lawsuits and altering journalistic standards because they know aggressive reporting poses a direct threat to their corporate profits and regulatory approvals.
Summary:
Ultimately, both methods achieve the same goal: they neutralize the press without needing to officially ban free speech. By squeezing the corporate parent companies where it hurts most, their wallets and their ability to merge, the state ensures that the "watchdog" willingly puts on its own leash.
only registered users can see external links
Case: Hunter Biden sued Patrick Byrne, a former CEO of Overstock.com and a political commentator, for defamation.
Claim: Biden alleged that Byrne made false statements accusing him of serious crimes and misconduct, including claims tied to corruption and the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Outcome: The court entered judgment for Hunter Biden after Byrne failed to properly defend the case and did not comply with court orders (a default judgment, rather than a verdict after a full trial).
Damages: The court awarded Hunter Biden $1 in nominal damages and $1.7 million in punitive damages.
Meaning: It was a real legal win for Hunter Biden: a court judgment finding Byrne liable and awarding damages.
As far as I can find, Trump has NEVER won any of the defamation cases that he started. Sometimes, the other side backs down and settles, if Trump abuses the power of his office to coerce the plaintiffs into submission, or if they let him have the settlement as a bribe.
McConnell says he was "briefly unconscious" had pneumonia in health update
only registered users can see external links
Watching the whole Mitch McConnell situation from over here in the Netherlands, and honestly, we are completely baffled by how badly his team botched the communication on this. Holding back information for nearly a month was just flat-out stupid crisis management.
Nobody is buying the official press release claiming he was just "briefly unconscious" after a simple fall. That completely contradicts the leaked EMS audio where dispatchers literally mentioned a potential cardiac arrest and emergency CPR. When you hide basic facts,
you create a massive information vacuum, and that's a dangerous paradox: by trying to suppress media noise, his office actually fueled the exact conspiracy theories they wanted to avoid. (https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/2076466612333625677)
This isn't just "liberals" making noise. Many prominent right-wing influencers have been openly speculating for weeks whether he was secretly dead or in a permanent coma, demanding to know why leadership was hiding his true condition.
Over here, Dutch news outlets (like the national broadcaster NOS and major newspapers like NRC and de Volkskrant) have been covering this with sheer amazement. Our political analysts find it wild how a top-tier Washington PR team didn't realize that in 2026, total silence guarantees the internet will just fill the gaps with AI deepfakes and rumors.
To us, treating an 84-year-old senator's major health crisis like a state secret just erodes public trust even further.
The root of the problem is how our legal systems differ. In the U.S., you don’t have temporary replacements for Congress. It’s all-or-nothing. With a razor-thin Senate majority, if McConnell steps aside or admits he is incapacitated, his party can't hold the party line, risking their ability to pass laws or even meet a quorum. The American system practically forces politicians to hide their illnesses to protect their party's power.
In the Netherlands, our election laws actually remove that political risk. Since 2006, we have a system that allows for a strict 16-week temporary replacement, if a Member of Parliament gets seriously ill. The next person on the party's election list steps in, so the party loses zero voting power. If someone is just out for a brief month, their seat stays empty, but the party will instantly release a brief statement like "Member of Parliament X is recovering from surgery for the next four weeks." End of story. Our system allows politicians to be transparent because honesty won't cost the party a crucial vote, whereas the U.S. system practically rewards secrecy and forces PR teams to run these absurd "Proof of Life" spins.
--------------------------------------- added after 218 hours
If you are working for any American company as employee, ask yourself what happens to your job, if you are absent for 38 days, without calling in sick officially.
Socialism comes from the Latin word socius, meaning "companion" or "associate.".
The basic idea is that the economy should benefit everyone, not mainly rich owners or shareholders. This usually means that important businesses and services should be owned or controlled by the people who work in them, the people who use them, or the public as a whole.
Communism comes from the Latin word communis, meaning "common" or "shared." The idea is that things like land, factories, and machines should belong to everyone together, instead of being owned by private people or companies. In Marxist theory, this would eventually lead to a society without social classes or a government.
Countries such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China called themselves communist, but whether they actually achieved the goals of communism is still debated. Calling yourself something does not automatically make you that thing. A country can call itself communist without matching the original idea, just as a country can call itself democratic without actually being a democracy.
The meaning of words can change over time. However, in political science, words like socialism and communism still have clear definitions. Whether you agree with these ideas or not, it is important to know the difference between what an idea MEANS and what has been done by people who CLAIMED to follow it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism comes from the word capital, which comes from the Latin capitale, meaning wealth or property. In economics, capital means resources that can be used to produce goods and services, such as land, factories, machines, businesses, and financial assets.
The basic idea of capitalism is that productive resources are privately owned. This means that individuals, groups, or companies can own and control the things used to produce goods and services. Because ownership gives decision-making power, the owners of capital have the authority to decide how those resources are used and have the right to benefit from their use.
Throughout history, capitalism has taken many different forms. Some capitalist societies have produced high levels of innovation, economic growth, and prosperity. Others have been associated with serious problems, including exploitation of workers, extreme inequality, monopolies, and the concentration of economic and political power.
During the Industrial Revolution, many workers experienced dangerous working conditions, very low wages, long working hours, and child labour. During the Gilded Age in the United States, large companies and wealthy industrialists gained enormous economic influence, creating concerns about monopolies and unequal political power. Colonial economic systems also often combined private ownership and profit-making with the exploitation of people and resources.
These examples are part of the history of capitalism, just as authoritarian governments are part of the history of movements that called themselves socialist or communist. However, historical examples do not by themselves define the entire concept. They show the different ways a system can develop depending on the institutions, rules, and power structures surrounding it.
Like socialism and communism, capitalism is a broad family of ideas with different interpretations. Some forms place more emphasis on individual freedom, private ownership, and fewer restrictions on economic activity. Other forms support stronger rules and public institutions to influence how the economy works.
The meaning of the word does NOT depend on whether a particular capitalist society is successful, fair, unequal, democratic, or dominated by large corporations. Those are questions about how capitalism is organized and what results from it. The basic definition remains the same: capitalism is a system based on private ownership of productive resources.
Do you see a classless, stateless society, based on common ownership,
on that 'communist side'?
And that is TRUE, in the Marxist definitions of both terms, but not how YOU define them.
I have been trying to get you to understand this for YEARS NOW.
===== The Marxist Ideal (The Blueprint):
Karl Marx’s entire philosophy was about decentralization. Marx saw capitalism as a system where a tiny elite at the top (the CEOs/Oligarchs) held all the economic and political power over the working class.
- Socialism was the transition phase: the workers taking over the factories and governing democratically from the bottom up.
- Communism was the ultimate end goal: a society where the central state completely vanishes because power and wealth are so thoroughly distributed among local communities that a government bureaucracy isn't even needed anymore. It is the absolute absence of a ruling class.
"younger people want to try to change the definition of words"
YOU are changing the definitions, based on the lies of dictators.
===== The Dictator's Marketing Campaign vs. The Reality
When most people in the West think of "communism," they are actually looking at the brutal realities of regimes led by dictators like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Nicolбs Maduro. However, there is a massive gulf between what these rulers did and what the actual definition of the ideology means.
These dictators essentially ran a massive political bait-and-switch. They used Karl Marx’s popular, populist slogans, promising equality, power to the working class, and an end to oppression, to gain the trust of the masses and overthrow the existing governments. But once they secured control, they did the exact opposite of what Marxist theory dictates.
Instead of gradually dismantling the power of the state and distributing wealth and decision-making power down to local communities, these regimes hyper-centralized the state. They built massive, top-down authoritarian systems where a tiny, unelected political and military elite held 100% of the political power and controlled 100% of the economic resources. They didn't eliminate the billionaire ruling class; they simply replaced them, concentrating the nation's wealth into their own private pockets while the working class starved.
In short: they adopted the vocabulary of communism as a marketing shield to mask what was, in reality, a standard, corrupt oligarchy. Believing these regimes were actually communist just because they used the label is the equivalent of believing North Korea
is a democracy, just because its official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
===== The Dictator's Bait-and-Switch (and how it applies to the US)
Dictators like Stalin or Maduro ran a massive political fraud. They used Karl Marx’s slogans (equality, power to the workers) to overthrow the system. But instead of giving power to the people, they hyper-centralized the state. They built a corrupt oligarchy, concentrating 100% of the wealth and power into their own private pockets.
Believing they were actually communist, just because of their marketing, is like believing North Korea is a democracy because it’s in their official name.
This exact same bait-and-switch can happen in the US. If a populist leader dismantles democratic checks and balances and merges government power with ultra-rich billionaires, the free market dies.
The mechanism is just inverted, but the result is identical:
• In Venezuela, a political elite seized the economy to enrich themselves.
• In an authoritarian US, a corporate billionaire elite captures the government to control the laws and wealth for themselves.
Both roads lead to the exact same destination: a hyper-centralized ruling class with 100% of the power, leaving the working class with zero influence. Authoritarian elites always rob the working class the exact same way, regardless of whether they wave a communist red flag or an American one.
What is to stop it from progressing past the "ideal " stage of socialism?
The 'end goal' is the desired result. Who said that it should be prevented?
The wheel chock is people's desire to be selfish and power hungry.
You keep thinking that 'communism' is authoritarian. Can't you read?
A "classless, stateless society, based on common ownership".
That's the complete ABSENCE of authority.
"To believe that the process would stop suddenly for the first time in world history"
THE PROCESS NEVER EVER REACHED ANYTHING NEAR IT!!!!
No country has ever even achieved the "transition stage".
People are SELFISH. CAPITALISM needs wheel chocks to prevent the machine
from progressing to OLIGARCHY, because the greed and lust for power of the
wealthy elites can never be satisfied. DO YOU HAVE EYES?!?
What are YOU doing to stop CAPITALISM declining to OLIGARCHY?
Society will NEVER progress from socialism to capitalism automatically,
because it REQUIRES THE WILLINGNESS TO SHARE!
Marx didn't propose socialism as the 'ideal stage', but communism.
I am a socialist; for ME PERSONALLY it IS the 'ideal stage'.
I think that humans are too selfish to accept communism, and that a state
with some form of government is practically useful.
You keep showing that you don't understand; "once everyone is equal" that IS communism, as Marx intended it, as the 'end goal'. In socialism, not everyone and everything is equal YET. It's all a lot MORE equal than everywhere currently, but
there are still people with talent and luck accumulating more wealth than others.
It's just laying a base of equal opportunity for everyone.
We WON'T get there trusting politicians, this takes a broad consensus of people desiring equality enough, to let go of their greed and lust for power, and provide
equal opportunity and share ownership a lot more. It means that the powerful elite gives up a lot of their power and wealth. Nothing about this will be easy or progress automatically. PROGRESS ITSELF NEVER HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY.
Added later:
Actually, I'm not so sure now that he is the monster your 'news' is making him out to be. His pardon was supported by the victim herself. During the June 2026 hearing, a victim advocate read aloud a letter written by the woman Tou Lue Vang had abused. In her letter, she stated: "What happened to me was wrong, but I've had many years to think about this. I have made my peace with it. I forgive him. That was a long time ago. It was over 20 years ago. He is not the same person now.”.
I don't want to hear you about this.
Very few people have common sense.
He was prostituting those girls to wealthy assholes. They need to face justice.
It's not happening, because Trump and Elon are very likely involved too.
If the FBI under Kash Patel is releasing files, I indeed don't trust them,
but fabricating the evidence with AI is even over the limit for Kash Patel.
He knows that he's an idiot who can never do that and hide it for ever.
Have you seen the level of amateurism of the censored released files?
It will come out eventually and if a Democrat is in office, he'll be toast.
The witnesses have forgotten NOTHING!! They have testified multiple times to multiple law enforcement agencies. They have been thwarted for many years,
which is a big red sign that powerful wealthy people are involved.
Your side didn't believe that Epstein killed himself in jail. You of course accused Clinton, while Donald Trump was the president at that time, and there are recordings of Epstein saying that he feared being killed by Trump, but you didn't believe the nonsense official story for a second.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Good point, although somewhat crudely communicated.
Lots of petty men said that women are too emotional,
and that's why they couldn't vote for Kamala Harris.
Trump has about 10 temper tantrums per day, 100 if you count his nightly tweets.
I've never seen Kamala Harris be that emotional, even once.
He doesn't care about you or anyone, but himself.
only registered users can see external links
Hes not MUSLIM!
There are more Americans every day arguing that being gay should be illegal.
Maybe not slavery, but techno-feudalism isn't much fun either.
The manosphere considers women subservient to men.
They think that serving their husband is their only right.
Trump himself couldn't care less. He was pro-abortion for his whole life, until he needed the votes of the Christian fundamentalists.
"He's not Muslim" is a very low bar for a country that shouts FREEDOM from the rooftops.
By the way, there are lots of Muslims who care about freedom more than you.
That's why they protest their horrible regimes at the risk of death.
I don't see you fight for your freedoms like that.
What's the difference?
only registered users can see external links
Don't agree? Argue why he's wrong.
The only hope is that there's enough room to accommodate some of the electorate's wishes.
to win an election, they might promise to do something for you, but as soon as they try, they get a phone call from their wealthy donor saying:
"Who the hell do you think you are working for?"
If their career only depends on your vote, their "what's in it for me" question
is the same as "what's in it for my voters". Of course, you also need to end their ability
to trade in individual stocks and end the 'revolving door'.
of independence celebrations. It's hard to see.
A poll showed that self-identified progressives broke heavily for Becerra, with 39% backing Becerra and only 29% preferring Steyer.
Progressive voters preferred Becerra's decades of institutional experience, specifically his 122 lawsuits defending liberal policies against the first Trump administration, over Steyer's outside corporate outsider platform.
When Swalwell dropped out, tracking polls showed that Becerra was widely viewed as the "least objectionable" second-choice alternative for mainstream Democrats.
A poll (CEPP) also showed that as trailing candidates like Katie Porter lost steam, a higher percentage of their voters strategically migrated to Becerra (37%) rather than Steyer (31%) to prevent a worst-case scenario where two Republicans advanced to November.
Voter trust was the single biggest obstacle Tom Steyer faced, and a widespread skepticism about whether a billionaire hedge fund titan would actually keep his populist, tax-the-rich promises ultimately tanked his campaign.
Current polls show Democrat Xavier Becerra with a commanding, double-digit lead
over Republican Steve Hilton.
As a result, average Americans keep getting poorer, which is also bad for the economy. In New York, the mayor is helping small businesses, which is much better for the incomes of ordinary Americans. Jobs in that sector are also far less vulnerable to the AI transition, than the jobs at Goldman Sachs.
By the way, ChatGPT says it's not true:
The short answer is: no, there is not strong evidence that businesses are leaving New York by the thousands because of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and Goldman Sachs has not announced that it is leaving New York because of him.
A few important distinctions:
1) Warnings are not the same as departures.
Many business leaders, investors, and CEOs have warned that higher taxes or more regulation could encourage companies or wealthy residents to leave New York. For example, executives such as Jamie Dimon and Ken Griffin have expressed concerns about New York's competitiveness.
2) Goldman Sachs is not leaving New York.
I could not find any credible report that Goldman Sachs has decided to relocate its headquarters or exit New York because of Mamdani. In fact, reports indicate that Goldman CEO David Solomon met with Mamdani as part of an engagement effort rather than announcing a departure.
3) Some finance jobs have been moving to Texas for years.
Banks and financial firms—including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and others—have expanded in places like Dallas and Miami. But that trend began well before Mamdani became mayor and is driven by multiple factors: lower taxes, cheaper real estate, remote work, and business incentives. It would be misleading to attribute all of it to Mamdani.
4) The evidence for a mass exodus is mixed.
Some commentators and business groups claim an exodus is brewing, while others note that predictions of a Wall Street flight have repeatedly failed to materialize and that New York remains the dominant U.S. financial center. Several analyses argue that fears of an immediate business collapse are exaggerated.
New York's 7th Congressional District (Parts of Brooklyn and Queens):
Progressive Winner: Claire Valdez
Endorsed by Zohran Mamdani.
Valdez is a democratic socialist and former United Auto Workers (UAW) labor organizer who campaigned closely alongside Mayor Mamdani.
Defeated Establishment-backed Candidate Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. Reynoso was the institutional favorite.
New York's 10th Congressional District (Manhattan and Brooklyn):
Progressive Winner: Brad Lander
Endorsed by Zohran Mamdani.
Defeated Establishment-backed two-term incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman. Goldman had strong backing from the Washington establishment, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who actively campaigned against Mamdani’s slate.
New York's 13th Congressional District (Upper Manhattan and the Bronx):
Progressive Winner: Darializa Avila Chevalier
Endorsed by Zohran Mamdani. Chevalier, a democratic socialist community organizer, was Mamdani's most fiercely defended and polarizing pick on the slate.
Defeated AIPAC-backed incumbent, Rep. Adriano Espaillat.
New York's 17th Congressional District:
Combat veteran Cait Conley won the primary to challenge GOP incumbent Mike Lawler. She ran a campaign centered on working-class affordability.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) ran their largest-ever coordinated slate on the exact same night for the New York State Legislature. Despite center-left Super PACs spending nearly $10 million to stop them, a wave of progressive challengers won their primaries, including:
- Aber Kawas (State Senate)
- Samantha Kattan (State Assembly)
- David Orkin (State Assembly)
- Eon Huntley (State Assembly)
- Christian Celeste Tate (State Assembly)
- Illapa Sairitupac (State Assembly)
Wanting to stop a genocide and land grabbing is not antisemitic.
(Most) People are not (completely) stupid, people recognize evil when they see it.
They didn't forget 9/11, they just see it done by your side 100x over.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir just said: "For every tear shed by an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep".
Not even the Nazis had a 1000:1 Retaliation ratio. They had a collective punishment ratio of 100 civilian executions for every German soldier killed by resistance fighters. That means that the Israeli government is TEN TIMES WORSE!!!
If your side didn't want 'that Muslim' coming in, your side could have given citizens
what they are asking for, which is to stop people going desperately poor.
It was Trump's choice to do that. People liked the slogan MAGA, but everyone but you understands now that it was just a stupid fucking lie.
These are Trump's most recent poll ratings:
30% approves
67% disapproves
Trump is stealing from the people and taking it for himself and his wealthy buddies.
He wants to increase the war budget to $ 1.5 TRILLION, after he promised "no more stupid wars!", and then cut their healthcare, education and everything else they need
to survive the modern world. What do you expect? There is a limit to even the stupidity of Americans. Your side has failed them just too fucking much, or they would not be happy to vote for a MUSLIM SOCIALIST!!!
--------------------------------------- added after 74 hours
No answer? Remember how your side was complaining about the price of eggs?
Can people afford them easier now? It's not just the price of eggs that makes that people can afford them. It's also what's left of their income, after they paid for rent or the mortgage, their power and water bill, sewer, trash collection, internet, mobile phone, their insurances including health insurance, childcare and education expenses if they have kids, the gas for their car and all other food.
Trump called their struggles to pay the bill A DEMOCRAT HOAX.
How many people agree with that?
only registered users can see external links
You say you FEEL that you're better off now than you were.
Facts don't care about your feelings. You're duped!
Why do you think that you have more right to rights than other people?
Abortion and reproductive autonomy
• Reinstated policies limiting federal funding for abortion-related services.
• Reversed some Biden-era reproductive health policies.
• Critics argue this reduces women's ability to access abortion, particularly for lower-income patients.
Asylum and immigration protections
• Expanded deportation efforts and narrowed asylum eligibility.
• Critics argue this limits due process and the practical ability to seek refuge in the United States.
Rights of transgender people
• Federal policy has been changed to recognize only male and female biological sex in many contexts.
• Protections and recognition for transgender people have been reduced in areas such as federal documentation, education, and some government programs.
Demonstration and protest rights (particularly on campuses)
• The administration has directed agencies to take stronger action against certain campus protests, especially those connected to allegations of antisemitism, and has supported investigations and immigration consequences for some non-citizen protesters.
• Critics argue these measures chill political expression and assembly protected by the First Amendment, especially when based on political viewpoints. Supporters argue they target unlawful conduct or harassment rather than peaceful protest.
Freedom of the media
• President Trump has continued to publicly attack major news organizations and has pursued policies such as attempting to end federal funding for NPR and PBS, arguing they are politically biased.
• Critics contend these actions, together with lawsuits and regulatory pressure on media organizations, risk undermining press independence and creating a chilling effect, even though no general censorship law has been enacted.
Freedom of lawyers and legal advocacy
• Executive actions have targeted several major law firms by restricting access to government facilities, contracts, or security clearances because of their clients or prior work.
• Many legal scholars and courts have questioned whether these actions infringe First Amendment rights and the independence of the legal profession.
Voting access
• The administration has supported stricter voter eligibility verification measures, including proof-of-citizenship requirements for some registration processes.
• Critics argue these rules could disproportionately burden minority voters, including Black Americans, although they do not explicitly deny voting rights based on race.
Diversity and equal opportunity programs
• Federal DEI initiatives have been dismantled or prohibited in many agencies and grant programs.
• Critics argue this restricts efforts to remedy historical discrimination; supporters argue it removes preferential treatment and restores merit-based decision-making.
Birthright citizenship (attempted)
• The administration sought to limit automatic citizenship for some children born in the United States through executive action.
• The policy faces constitutional challenges and has not been definitively upheld.
Civil service independence
• Reforms have expanded presidential control over parts of the federal bureaucracy and reduced some protections for career officials.
• Critics argue this weakens institutional independence and could discourage dissent within government.
" I see protection of the rights for CITIZENS> and dei is not a right, it's government sponsored racism."
Why do you think that you have more right to rights than other people?
1) Demonstration and protest rights
This directly implicates the First Amendment.
The key debate is whether the administration's actions target unlawful conduct or whether they chill protected speech and assembly.
2) Freedom of the media
Freedom of the press is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.
The disagreement is over whether Trump's actions merely criticize the media or whether government pressure creates a chilling effect.
3) Freedom of lawyers and legal advocacy
This implicates rights of association, petition, due process, and the independence of legal representation.
The legal controversy exists precisely because constitutional rights may be involved.
4) Voting access
Voting is a fundamental right of citizens.
The dispute is not whether voting rights matter, but whether stricter verification requirements are legitimate election-security measures or unjustified barriers.
5) Birthright citizenship (attempted)
Citizenship itself is one of the most fundamental legal statuses in the US.
Trump is trying to turn CITIZENS into immigrants.
You once supported completely unlimited freedom of speech and now you are OK with taking away the rights of media that you consider biased. Previously you were OK with your media verifiably lying, and now you want unbiased media?
I say you're gaslighting; you see that there is someone in power now who can crush the speech of the other side, so you flip from your original position.
You keep saying "for me". You're not the only American CITIZEN.
Women, protesters, everyone using the media, everyone voting
and every American who needs a lawyer is a CITIZEN too.
How many lawyers does your president need?
I'm asking you for the third time:
Why do you think that you have more right to rights than other people?
If 'people' is too broad for you, OK limit it to 'citizens'.
Obviously, you think that non-citizens aren't people who deserve rights.
Your Constitution says otherwise, but we both know you don't care.
At least Republicans have stopped pretending they care about the Constitution.
There is a limit to gaslighting that even your side thinks is too much.
Democrats are citizens too. If you think they should lose their rights, don't cry when they take your rights, when they are in power again.
You're making yourself stupid by doing it, but that's your right.
I don't like either liberal media or right-wing media, I want OBJECTIVE media. There is less of it every day, because you let corporations and wealthy people buy up all the media, which means that they turn into propaganda for the wealthy.
If you are referring to media which has been shut down by algorithms like google, you're talking about the worst misinformation that ever existed. Regular right-wing nonsense gets incredible preferential treatment by Google, YouTube and Facebook. The algorithms actively suppress left-wing ideas, no matter how factual they are.
Anyway, that's not Government censorship, that's corporations deciding what they like to prop up and cut off.
as the objective truth. Being unbiased doesn't mean being neutral,
it means being OBJECTIVE.
There is only one truth, and you recognize it by using rationality;
recognizing facts, based on evidence, then using logical reasoning
to come to correct conclusions.
Your media doesn't do any of it. They just train you to trust them
and then fill your head with ideas that they want you to believe.
Your 'liberal' media is already worse than anything we have,
but your right-wing media is at the level of Russian propaganda.
Biden can be praised for listening to experts and signing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, allowing a historic release of oil from the SPR in 2022 to temporarily cool soaring gasoline prices, and allowing the Federal Reserve to aggressively raise interest rates to cool demand. The last was a difficult decision, because it didn't make him popular, but it was necessary according to the experts.
Trump can be criticized for raising inflation, by starting a tariff trade-war, that most experts were warning against. Tariffs can be a legitimate tool against unfair competition. However, Trump turned them into a blunt instrument and starting a trade war that resulted in exploding costs of living for Americans, retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports, billions in farm bailouts, and increased economic uncertainty.
And when a president repeatedly makes market-moving announcements in an unpredictable way, while unusually well-timed trades appear around some of those announcements, people are inevitably going to ask who knew what and when.
There is no publicly proven insider trading by Trump or his family (yet), but he created
exactly the kind of opaque, volatility-driven environment that invites those suspicions.
You really think you are better off than if Harris had won? If you do you are blind to reality
No new wars? Well gee, the situation in 1979 was never really resolved, and Iran sponsors terror, there has been a literal war on terror since 2001 , oh i know, you have forgot about that. anyway, far as I am concerned the war on terror was already in effect and Trump is trying to stop it at the funding source. I was just in a discussion with a local farmer about cost of fertlyzer and how it was stuck in the strait of hurmuz due to iran. now that maybe it's open again, cost can come down. 1 nation does not need to be in a position to stop the world economy like that.
and he promised to not start wars like that.
You can try to defend it, but he broke that promise.
And he broke several more promises.
Unlike Democrats who break promises, Trump didn't even try to keep his',
he actively did the opposite of what he promised.
In any case, his war with Iran is your worst failure in decades.
He didn't achieve ANYTHING that he presented as goals for it.
Your own words show Trump's utter incompetence.
Trump did NOTHING to prevent Iran from having nukes.
He only showed them that they desperately need them, for self defense.
Are the Iranian people freed of their dictatorship? NO!
Are we sure that Iran doesn't make nukes? LESS SO!
Trump is now negotiating with the very people he taught not to trust him.
Trump killed Iran's pragmatists and strengthened the hardliners who argued
that America could never be trusted.
The very Iranians who dreamed of freedom and looked to America for help, have buried family and friends, watched hope give way to fear, and may emerge from this crisis less free, more fearful, and more distrustful of the United States, than ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the criterion is "which arrangement appears better for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?", then most nonproliferation experts would currently rate the 2015 JCPOA's published verification regime as stronger and more proven than the publicly known terms of the 2026 framework, because the newer framework's inspection and enforcement details are not yet fully public.
🟩 = Better for Western nuclear security
🟥 = Worse for Western nuclear security
1) Nuclear inspections and verification
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Extensive monitoring by the IAEA.
Continuous surveillance of key nuclear facilities.
Detailed procedures for investigating suspicious activities.
Verification provisions were written into the agreement.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Publicly known inspection provisions are less detailed.
Many verification mechanisms are still being negotiated or have not been released publicly.
It is not yet clear whether inspections will be as intrusive as under the JCPOA.
2) Limits on uranium enrichment
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Enrichment capped at low levels suitable for civilian use.
Clear numerical limits on enrichment and stockpiles.
Breakout time (time needed to produce bomb fuel) was significantly extended.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Public descriptions have been inconsistent regarding whether Iran may retain any enrichment capability.
Final enrichment limits are not yet fully defined publicly.
3) Limits on enriched uranium stockpiles
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Strict caps on how much enriched uranium Iran could possess.
Excess material had to be shipped out or diluted.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Discussions include reducing or removing highly enriched stockpiles.
Publicly available details are less specific and less developed.
4) Confidence that Iran is not secretly building a bomb
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Relied on a large inspection and monitoring infrastructure.
Created a structured system for detecting violations.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
There is currently less publicly available information demonstrating an equivalent monitoring system.
Confidence depends heavily on provisions that have not yet been fully disclosed.
5) Economic concessions to Iran
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Sanctions relief was phased and linked to verified compliance.
Benefits were tied to specific nuclear obligations.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Potentially larger economic benefits, including discussion of a fund reportedly around $300 billion and broader sanctions relief.
Critics argue this provides more upfront leverage to Iran for fewer publicly known nuclear restrictions.
6) Ballistic missiles
🟨 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Did not eliminate Iran's missile force.
Missile restrictions were mostly handled through separate UN measures.
🟨 Trump Framework (2026):
Does not appear to require immediate dismantlement of Iran's missile arsenal.
Future missile limits may be negotiated.
Result: Roughly a tie from a nuclear-safety perspective.
7) Overall nuclear safeguards
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Fully negotiated.
Detailed technical annexes.
Years of implementation experience.
Clear verification architecture.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Still evolving.
Many key technical details remain unclear.
Public information does not yet show safeguards that are demonstrably stronger than the JCPOA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall score (nuclear-security perspective only)
Obama JCPOA (2015):
🟩 Inspections
🟩 Enrichment limits
🟩 Stockpile limits
🟩 Verification confidence
🟩 Compliance-linked sanctions relief
🟨 Missiles
Trump Framework (2026):
🟥 Inspections
🟥 Enrichment clarity
🟥 Stockpile controls
🟥 Verification confidence
🟥 Economic concessions
🟨 Missiles
Um, you would think AI would be trained to be unbiased but no,even it leans left, now how is a young person wanting to learn and understand politics going to get a good understanding of both sides when the tool used the most nowadays for answers is left leaning?
The right is completely preoccupied with nonsense and lies.
AI is logical, that is why Elon is struggling so much to turn it right-wing.
Understand that the passive income of a trillion dollars is $137 million per DAY. That means that he can buy 350 average American houses per DAY. He is not doing that, he prefers to buy companies, which increase his influence in the world. Other multi-billionaires are indeed buying houses and farms.
Just six years ago, the wealthiest man in the world was Jeff Bezos. He owned $100 billion in assets. Today, the wealthiest man in the world owns at least TEN TIMES as much.
Did your wealth grow by ten times in the last six years?
In another six years, will the wealthiest man in the world own $ 10 trillion?
And 12 years from now? Will the wealthiest man in the world then own 100 trillion dollars?
The total value of everything in the US is estimated to be around 200 trillion dollars.
When do you think this will be owned by just a few wealthy men?
What will become of you, if everything in your country is owned by a few wealthy men?
Do you understand the power that they will hold over you?
Slaves had plenty of jobs too. Under feudalism, people worked 10-14 hrs/day
and were still starving and dying from the common cold.
People escaped their exploitation by resisting it.
You are doing the opposite.
They are not MAKING that kind of money, they are EXTRACTING IT.
People like you are turning everything into wealth transfer to the 0.1%.
You are defending a guy becoming a trillionaire from electric cars and space,
which are things that you considered completely useless before, and is funded
by tax-dollars for a big chunk.
liberals and lefties would not vote for him.
You voted in the most crooked president ever.
The result is that your president is doing the bidding of Putin and Netanyahu,
because YOU voted in a president who can be blackmailed easily.
It's not America first, it's Russia, Israel and Trump's money first.
America comes dead last in his priorities, and it shows.
-The Globe and Mail
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
This will help Jewish New Yorkers through prevention, victim support, education, community partnerships, and coordination across agencies, rather than primarily through increased policing.
Some examples of what the city's hate-crime prevention offices already do:
- Work with Jewish organizations and other community groups to identify threats and respond to incidents.
- Support victims of antisemitic incidents and improve reporting of hate crimes.
- Fund community projects, interfaith initiatives, and educational programs intended to reduce antisemitism and other forms of bias before they escalate into crimes.
- Coordinate responses among agencies such as the NYPD, Commission on Human Rights, schools, and district attorneys.
- Improve hate-crime data collection, training, and outreach to communities that may underreport incidents.
Mamdani explicitly justified the increase by noting that Jewish New Yorkers suffer a disproportionate share of the city's hate crimes.
You are the one voting in the fascists. Your president is literally quoting Hitler, dining with Nazis, retweeting KKK-propaganda and calling neo-Nazis "fine people". They are little busy with putting immigrants in concentration camps, reinstating Jim Crow laws and planning criminalization of gays, but they will surely get back to killing Jews, as soon as they have created the promised land. They don't believe that the promised land belongs to the Jews, it's intended for Christians, after the Rapture.
only registered users can see external links
Crazy eh?
-Mike Pence
for most people. It's just the continuation of a trend that you'd have to be willfully blind
not to notice. Gary saw it happening, and made money betting on the collapse of society.
He is now feeling guilty, and he is doing what he is doing, because he is expecting
that future suffering people will ask him: “Did you try and do anything?”.
"I've seen the tsunami coming"
only registered users can see external links
If you don't agree with his prediction, why not?
- Are you OK with most people living in abject poverty again?
- Do you think he is wrong? If so, why? What are you seeing, that I don't?
- Do you think he is lying? Why? What's in it for him?