Emergent Self-Awareness in Vegetables: A Concerning Development

Earlier this month, researchers at the University of Helsinki reported what appears to be
the first case of sentient plant matter: a bell pepper exhibiting facial expressions consistent with fear. Subsequent tests showed measurable electrical activity when the specimen was approached with a knife.

Within days, similar phenomena were observed in other produce, particularly root vegetables and leafy greens. One cabbage was recorded rotating itself slowly away
from sunlight, “as if attempting concealment,” according to the study.

The implications are profound. Ethical committees worldwide are now debating whether harvesting vegetables constitutes harm, effectively rendering veganism, long considered the most ethical dietary choice, a moral paradox.

As of today, no safe, guilt-free food source has been identified. Experts recommend consuming only minerals “until further notice.”

The statement you quoted is partially true but also contains elements of unverified claims and sensationalism that should be treated with caution. Here’s a breakdown of what is known and what is not fully substantiated:

✅ What is true

1. The feed additive Bovaer (active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol, 3-NOP) is being used in Denmark in dairy cattle feed as part of efforts to reduce methane emissions.

2. Denmark has put in place policies to reduce methane emissions from dairy farming — including subsidies/confidence for feed additives — as part of its climate / agricultural emissions strategy.

3. There are reports from Danish farmers of animal health problems (e.g., reduced milk output, cows „sluggish“, some rumen-failure, some culls) after the introduction of Bovaer in some herds.

4. The manufacturer (DSM‑Firmenich) and Danish authorities have acknowledged and are investigating the reports of problems (though they do not conclude causation yet).

⚠️ What is not (yet) clearly proven

1. While farmers report cows “collapsing” and being euthanized, I did not locate independent, peer-reviewed or official veterinary data that confirms widespread collapses/euthanization directly caused by the additive. The media reports and farmer complaints are there, but causality is not established.

2. The claim that the policy “after Jan. 1 2025” mandated the additive in “large dairy farms” and that cows “started giving less milk, collapsing and in some instances getting so ill that they need to be euthanized” is a strong version of the claim and appears to be more sensational than the evidence currently supports. For example:

- The requirement noted in ­Agriland: “Since January 1, 2025, all conventional dairy farmers in Denmark with more than 50 cows are required to reduce methane emissions by either adjusting feed (increasing fat) or adding Bovaer for 80 days a year.”

- The phrase “collapsing cows” appears in certain farmer-complaint articles and blogs,
but not in official statistical data indicating a systemic collapse across Danish dairy herds.

Also be aware: Some of the articles you quoted (and similar ones) come from outlets with strongly charged language (“cows drop like flies,” etc). These may amplify or interpret anecdotal reports without full vetting.

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

Feeding cows "processed food" has been going on for a long time, with the goal
of maximizing profits. Your mental image of cows grazing in the pasture is obsolete.
31% of cows in The Netherlands never comes outside, the rest only (a small) part
of the year.



When they are inside, they are eating processed feed. Most farmers have their own production pasture or grain field to grow ingredients for the feed, but almost all of them
add large scale produced feed and additives.

De Heus Animal Nutrition
only registered users can see external links

ForFarmers
only registered users can see external links

Agrifirm
only registered users can see external links

The animal feed industry in The Netherlands has an estimated annual revenue of approximately $16.5 Billion.

Cows are milk and meat factories and don't get treated as animals that can suffer.
It's your side of politics that created that, and it's NOT your side of politics that is
aiming to make farming less cruel to animals. You celebrate 'profit over people',
so why would you care that profit hurts animals?

Feed additives like Bovaer are an alternative for reducing cattle.
Denying the reality of climate change is not helping anyone.
At least in Denmark they are trying a compromise. You better hope it works,
or you can say goodbye to milk and beef altogether.

And they are friends with the scientists? Explain how it works.

Suffered from WHAT?
The same things they are still suffering from?
You just replaced one demented old fool for a worse one.
This old demented fool is destroying people's healthcare and social security.
Americans will suffer and die much more because of him.

Do you not understand that you are describing YOUR reality, not ours?
"Not knowing where you might be living in 4 months" Not in my country.
Our renting system might be broken, but not like that.
We still have laws to protect people from that.

It's also not a choice for most people. There is no IF you rent.
When you are not rich enough, you rent, or you live in a tent.

There is nothing to ignore, because you don't have any arguments,
besides simplistic thinking as "A enemy of a free country".

It's just a stupid straw-man, not an actual argument.

I am a socialist. What am I ignoring?

What freedom are you giving up, if you replace the wealthy people who exploit you with public funding from the bottom up?

The facts say that he won ONE time and cheated himself to victory the last time.
He should be in prison for his treason, the second time.

I know you believe bullshit. There is nothing I can do about that.

True, about 70% of Dutch people own their own home. That means the other 30%
are renting their home.

As I told you before, The Netherlands HAD a very good system of public housing. The social rental sector was massive, reaching over 40% of the total housing stock by 1990. In cities like Amsterdam, this share was even higher. Most social housing was owned and managed by "woningcorporaties" (Non-Profit Housing Associations), which operated under a strict regulatory framework and were heavily dependent on government financial support. These housing associations were created after the war, to build a large number of affordable homes to address post-war housing shortages.

My girlfriend and I lived in one of those social houses for 9 years. The rent was $380/month. It enabled us to improve ourselves, save up a lot of money, and buy a house.

Many people cannot afford to buy a house. Also a lot of people never wanted to.
Many people will regret not buying a house when we did, because the rent has at least doubled and the price of owner-occupied houses almost doubled in less than 20 years, because the right-wing parties privatized the housing market.

We would never be able to buy our house anymore, if we tried today. We have an income between 1.5x and 2x the median. We would be able to get a mortgage of up to about Ђ375,000 ($432,776). There are still houses being sold at that price, but not a lot and not ours. The mortgage would be Ђ1700/month ($1962), which would be Ђ1264 ($1459) after tax returns, if we started today. Those tax returns decline to 0 in 30 years.

However, because we bought that house in 2008/2009, and paid off a lot, our mortgage payments are now $473/month, and we still get $189 mortgage interest deduction.
That means that the $284/month we pay now is less than our rent back then.

Canada was expecting their resistance to hurt Canadians.
They don't want to be your cuck, because that would hurt more.

Not completely true; renting used to be just as good and more affordable. Some people still benefit from that, if they have rented the same house for decades, but for new people it's very expensive. The waiting lists for social housing are very long and the public sector is even more expensive.

That's because right-wing governments fucked up our social housing.
Since just 2010, wages climbed by 8%, while social rent house prizes climbed by 22%.
However, many of the social rent houses have been sold.
Many of them were bought up by private renters, which are MUCH more expensive.

The average rental price in the private sector varies, but in the fourth quarter of 2024
it was around Ђ1730 ($1997) per month, or Ђ18.01 ($20,79) per square meter.

That, combined with far too few houses having been built, exploded the prices.
The price of an average home was Ђ239,530 ($276,365) in 2010.
The price of an average home is around Ђ486,000 ($560,681) in 2025.
(They didn't become bigger. What they mostly build now is apartments)

I saw it coming, so I bought my house in 2008/2009, at Ђ265,000 bare ($305,710).
Neighbors are selling their house for Ђ475,000 ($547,970), but we are expecting
that people will overbid that.

There are private clinics in Canada too.

"Approximately 80,000 visits to U.S. health care facilities by Canadians occur each year, but most are for emergency care, not elective procedures." A lot of them are "snowbirds", Canadians, who migrate from the colder northern regions of North America to warmer southern destinations during the winter months. Millions of Canadians vacation or spend winters in the U.S.. Accidents and illnesses happen, and the nearest hospital is often the only immediate option. Their Canadian provincial insurance covers very little (sometimes only a fraction of the actual cost), so these travelers rely heavily on private travel insurance.

That means they are not crossing the border for YOUR healthcare, they are IN your country when they need healthcare and then are stuck with yours.

However, in some border areas, the nearest U.S. hospital is geographically closer than the nearest Canadian one. For genuine emergencies, people go to the closest facility.

A small, wealthy minority may travel for a non-emergency procedure to access specific cutting-edge treatments, particular specialists, or bypass Canadian wait times. However, this number is a small fraction of the 80,000 visits.

So, there is only a small bit of truth to your claim. I have told you before that American healthcare is ONLY good for VERY RICH people.

[In 2024, the Dutch government paid $118 Billion for healthcare related expenses.
It goes to:
- The Long-term Care Act (Wlz - Wet langdurige zorg): Care for vulnerable elderly people and people with a chronic illness or disability is largely paid from general funds.
- Youth Act and Social Support Act (Wmo - Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning): This care falls under the responsibility of municipalities, but is funded by the national government via the Municipalities Fund, which also comes from tax money.
- Healthcare allowance (Zorgtoeslag): The government pays a healthcare allowance to people with a low income to help them pay the nominal premium for healthcare insurance, which is an indirect contribution from taxes to the healthcare system.
- Income-related contribution (IAB - Inkomensafhankelijke bijdrage): Although this is called a "contribution", it is paid by employers or benefit agencies and flows via the Health Insurance Fund (Zvf) back into healthcare, which is a form of collective financing via a levy.]

ALL other care is paid for by our health insurances. My monthly premium is $194,11.
If I have an emergency, I pay NOTHING, it's all covered by my insurance. For all non-emergency care, I pay at maximum $444 in a year. My premium includes a small supplemental insurance package, which costs me less than $100/year, but pays me $173 for part of my chiropractor costs.
Your situation would cost our insurance $6,470. Our hospitals are more affordable, but provide a better quality of service than yours. However, that is considered a medical necessity. The base insurance covers it, and it will cost the patient $444. If they need anything else that is covered by the base insurance, it would be fully covered.

We don't get our health insurance from our employer, we pay for it ourselves.
We don't lose our insurance when we lose our job. Employers cannot use health insurance as a negotiation tactic, when we negotiate wages and other benefits.

The US does have lower taxes, but we get lots of tax returns, if we have a low income. And higher income people often own their home, which allows them to deduct their mortgage rent.

Don't forget that the US government also pays for healthcare with tax-dollars.

In one post you are proposing that climate change action is a waste of money and bad investments, but here you are saying that the whole goal of them are making money.
That doesn't compute, you cannot make money with bad investments.

No, probably not. Would there be any money returned to a retirees fund,
if they invested in General Motors and then GM goes belly up,
when they have not been investing in electric cars, and then everyone
will start buying electric cars, because they became superior cars?

A retirees' fund can be held liable for wrong investments, particularly if the fund's fiduciaries have acted imprudently or breached their duties. Under laws like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the United States, fund managers and fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries, and carry out their duties with the care, skill, and diligence of
a "prudent person". Do you have evidence that these were wrong investments,
other than the fact that they lost money?

Maybe the CETF manager is a crook. If CalPERS had no reason to suspect that,
they are not liable for the loss.

I just told you that it's a loss of 0.06% of its total value.
Do you instead investments, at all? The principle is to spread the risk over many investments, because some will lose money. Their overal return is ~14.3%.
That's very good for a retirees fund.

Tomorrow? Best of luck to you.
I hope you can report a vast improvement of your quality of life, very soon.

That's you being treated like a criminal, before a court finds you guilty.
We have been talking about 'Due Process' before.

The principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a fundamental concept in the U.S. criminal justice system. While not explicitly stated word-for-word, it stems from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment requires due process from the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment extends this requirement to state and local governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted "due process" to mean the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the defendant does not have to prove their innocence.

The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to state and local governments, states in its relevant part that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Thanks. I try to be logical, as much as possible, except for some presuppositions (fundamental, foundational beliefs). Those presuppositions are not supernatural, but I cannot prove them to be objective truths or facts. Everyone has them.
The most basic one is accepting that reality is true. We all could be brains in
a vat or code on some computer. It's impossible to disprove those things, but
I presuppose that they are not, or it's impossible to have any opinions or goals
in the world we find ourselves in, at all.

Sad to hear that your circle is shrinking. Do you think any of my proposals are viable?

The problem with asset forfeiture is that it happens in most cases BEFORE the crime has been proven in court. Cops take advantage of it, by taking stuff from suspects, that they don't even have to return after the suspects has been found NOT GUILTY.

This article from 2017, that claims that Attorney General Jeff Sessions returned to a practice of aggressively pursuing asset forfeiture cases.
only registered users can see external links

Many instances involve no conviction. For example: “In turn, 77 percent of those [federal cash] seizures were accomplished through a process that does not require either an arrest or a conviction.”
only registered users can see external links

December 12, 2024, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act to reform civil forfeiture laws and protect Americans’ rights from government abuse. If it had passed, it would have overhauled the federal civil forfeiture regime. The FAIR Act would raise the burden of proof for forfeitures, end the “equitable sharing” program, redirect forfeiture proceeds, provide more due-process protections, etc.
only registered users can see external links

Don't point to liberals without evidence. We are not doing politics here. This topic is about facts, evidence and logical argumentation. If you are just making political claims without any factual support, I will just delete it.

Jeff Sessions is a Republican, who used this "gravy train of easy money".

I support a very simple principle; People are not punished for a crime, until a judge finds them guilty. If there is a risk that a suspect will flee or commit other crimes,
they should await trial in jail. I see no reason to make their freedom until that time dependent on how much money they have.
If there is a suspicion of criminal proceeds, there is a good case for seizure of the assets, but those should be secured until a judge decides if these are indeed criminal proceeds or not. If there is no good case for the assets being criminal proceeds,
they should be returned in full. Stealing is wrong, so the government should not steal.

Your whole legal system is riddled with questionable laws related to money being drained from people under the guise of a cause. Read about your bond system
and asset forfeiture. You support those systems.

Why do you accept ideas from him, that you reject from anyone else?

Cankles McTacotits – Anti-Trump Irish Drinking Song
only registered users can see external links

That's how you interpret my words, with a brain full of shit.

It's your own side that claims that Charlie Kirk feared Netanyahu.
Since the murder, one weird claim after another has been surfacing.
The constant redressing, the constant assembly and disassembly of the rifle, the messages that don't sound like a young adult who was fully engaged in gamer culture, but confirm every move in the FBI story. It's exactly what you expect from a corrupt and incompetent FBI, which is what it turned into under Kash Patel.
He has shown the world what a bad liar he is, when he claimed that there is no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and under@ge girls
to anyone other than himself. Really? What about the island and all those flights?
Prince Andrew lost his royal style, titles, and honours, including the title of "prince" and "His Royal Highness", because of Epstein's trafficking. Maybe Patel thinks that YOU are stupid enough to believe him, but the rest of the world doesn't have shit in their heads.

It's also several people on your own side who have expressed public criticism
or even outrage over the interaction between Erika Kirk and J.D. Vance.
If this happened between liberals, you would not shut up about it for years.

She said on camera: “No one will ever replace Charlie, but I do see some similarities of my husband in JD, Vice President JD Vance,”. Note how she put "but" in that sentence. She is definitely thinking about replacing Charlie, there.

Before that even happened there was already talk about Usha wanting a divorce.

They are raising their profit margins to ridiculous numbers, without those taxes,
so you don't have any argument for your policies. They don't work.

No, just like all individual working class people, I cannot afford that. That is only
an option for the owner class, which is roughly 1% to 2% of the population.
They have that 'passive income' through exploitation, which makes it harder
for the bottom 60% of the population to retire at all.

Do you know how I can afford to own and rent out houses?
By working together with (lots of) other working class people.
Better yet, ALL of them. That's called 'public funding'.
You keep showing that you don't understand the concept.
Why is this so difficult for you?

All your arguments boil down to the idea that there are no alternatives for funding 'things', other than those wealthy people who exploit people. There are! It can be the government, it can be well regulated, profit restricted retirement funds and it can be publicly funded non-profit investment funds. It works very well, all over the world.
We had them, only a few decades ago, until our right-wing destroyed them, which resulted in the price of housing skyrocketing.

I told you this many times, but you keep ignoring reality.

They have beaten Margin of Victory records that date back to the 60s.

ISRAEL - 0

You are confirming how they outsmart you. When I say that "you wouldn't know what hit you", I'm not saying that they will attack YOU. You are just one of the rubes, there are millions of you. Charlie Kirk was just one of the foot soldiers, there are thousands like him.

When you want to kill a snake, you cut off the head.
Sure, the tail will flop around aimlessly for a while, but it will die soon.
That's you, 'not knowing what hit you'.

That's why it's stupid to think that there is a mastermind behind Charlie Kirk's murder, unless it's right-wingers or Netanyahu. Charlie Kirk was a grifter for your cause, but he was having second thoughts about the genocide, mostly because
the young people he caters to don't like it. There is even a record of Charlie saying that he was afraid of getting killed for his defiance against Netanyahu and Trump.

Here is Netanyahu, feeling the need to reject the idea, in his own paper.
only registered users can see external links
That's a strong confirmation of my claim.

Anyone with a brain understands that killing Charlie Kirk would not help liberals and lefties. It removed ONE voice in thousands, and that voice was starting to diverge from the rest. Someone who is NOT diverging will fill his shoes.
It might be his widow, who is has been grifting off his death, before he was even in the ground. It's a sickening display, even for me, who really didn't like Charlie Kirk, but at least admired some of his skills. He was a goldmine for analysis of truth twisting and debating tricks. I miss him a lot more than Trump misses him.

Here is the grieving widow, dressed like a couch, to woo her new love:


Bye Usha!

I just proved your claim wrong, about CalPERS losing money for their retirees,
because they are investing in “climate solutions”.

Using my facts to disprove the theories? Your theories? You don't have any.

There are thousands of scientists trying to prove climate science wrong.
That's how science works. Instead of proving it wrong, they end up confirming it,
with every attempt. None of your articles that are trying to debunk the science
of climate change are actually doing science. They are just doing propaganda.

CalPERS committed about US $468.4 million to its “Clean Energy & Technology Fund (CETF)” launched in 2007.
As of March 31, 2025, the remaining value of that fund (cash out + remaining investment value) was reported at about US $138.0 million, meaning a decline of approximately 71 % relative to the original commitment.
The fund paid at least US $22 million in fees/costs to private-equity managers despite the large loss.
CalPERS acknowledges the investment is from 2007 and asserts that this pre-dated its more current private-equity strategy and that they have since diversified and reduced fees.
The figure is derived from commitment vs remaining value (and cash out) in a private-equity context: private-equity valuations are less transparent and more illiquid than public-market assets. So the “71% loss” is based on CalPERS-reported values and not an immediately liquid market sale of all assets.

The loss is large in absolute terms (≈US $330 million), but relative to the entire CalPERS portfolio it is a small share.
CalPERS) currently manages approximately US $556.2 billion in assets under management. That means the loss is 0.06% of its total value.

CalPERS has made major commitments to “climate solution” investments: In 2024 they reported commitments exceeding US $53 billion in climate-focused investments (including infrastructure, energy transition, etc.).
Their overall latest annual return (for year ended June 2025) was ~11.6%.
Their private equity allocation (which may include climate/energy transition investments) reported ~14.3% return for that year.

That means that you are just parroting biassed information, to satisfy your own bias.

Why oh why would investments in clean energy drop in the US,
when you have a president who wants to destroy it?

Instead of investing in green energy, Trump is now trying to steal the oil of Venezuela.
If we are talking about bullshit, you are the one supporting it.

Alternative energy isn't bullshit, it's the cheapest least polluting energy.
It's California now, that is suffering from your ignorance, but soon it will be your whole country. You cannot win in global competition, by dragging your feet in innovation.
If you keep waging war and stealing shit, the rest of the world will shun you.
That will be the end of your empire, because global trade made you what you are.

When I bought my solar panels, they cost me about $6000.
I still made my money back in 3.5 years, because of high energy prices.
Now they are making me free electricity, every day, for the next 20-30 years.
That same amount of power on my roof would cost me about half of that today.
Explain what's bullshit about that.

How many threats and harassment do you think the OG Greta receives?

Throw yourself on your fainting couch for getting some hate back.
My side should stop being tolerant towards intolerance.

The side that you think is brainwashed, has science, facts and logic on its side.
Your side has nothing besides conspiracy theories and projection.

Is there ANY actual scientific argument against climate change in there?

The kind of arguments that you are pushing are flat earth level arguments.

Obama wouldn't waste his time or money on Charlie Kirk.
The fact that all your favorite politicians are still alive,
is evidence that Obama isn't doing what you think.

When liberals start killing, you wouldn't know what hit you,
because they outsmart you 10 to 1.

I think leopoldij is curious about more things, because he demonstrates knowledge on many subjects. That doesn't just happen.

I hear the loss of trust in humanity in everything you say. You will not learn to trust people again, while staying away from everyone, as much as you can.
There are lots of good people everywhere. It's worth the risk to try to meet them.
Just understand that people don't like you, if you show them that you don't like them. Approach people in a friendly, open manor and most of them respond friendly and openly.

I became active in politics, as much for self improvement as for improving the world around me. I have always been an introvert, but my job taught me to deal with it. The challenges of political activities have taught me more. I will never become an extrovert, but I can put myself in a more extrovert state of mind.

Maybe you could find some Rotary Club, Lions Club, Community garden, hunting/fishing club, local hiking or survival group. There is a movement growing of Men’s sheds, spaces where men do woodworking or repair projects together. There are also clubs where people tinker with old computers. Most of those places are not ideal to meet women, but it starts with meeting people. You need to be around people to start trusting them again. Social circles are better places to find reliable women, because the 'bitches' get kicked out of social circles. If you try to find a woman on the internet, it could be one of those 'bitches', who is looking for another man to scam or abuse.

Do I need to care about his story? This happens all the time now.
But, that's too political to talk about here.

Very interesting. Do they need a back office worker for innovation?
They could do so much more with the electronics. I guess they are not cheap,
so you would expect at least the functionality of a $100 Xiaomi tablet.
I would have so many ideas to improve their products.

Still, I wouldn't mind owning one, but they are a bit difficult to hide, if you already have
a girlfriend.

Yesterday, you had 4 elections in the US. In all 4 elections, the Democrats won:

New York City Mayor: Zohran Mamdani - Democrat
Virginia Governor: Abigail Spanberger - Democrat
New Jersey Governor: Mikie Sherrill - Democrat
Proposition 50 (California – redistricting): Approved

Americans are done with the MAGA traitors.

That's actually more of a self own, if you think about it.

Yeah, I'm saving up hard, but I guess it's more than I can afford.

Have you tried 'shemale' porn? That might help.

Howard Stern DEMOLISHES Trump voters.
only registered users can see external links

Well, they do, when they think that they are among 'friends':

It's a common right-wing idea. It's nonsense, and they are massive hypocrites about it.
It's always "free speech for me, but not for thee".

I agree that being offended is not a reason to take people's speech away, but that's not what she is defending. Most of her ilk is defending literal incitement, threats, defamation and doxing, which is indeed 'offensive', but also puts people in danger, because there are always stupid people who act on the words of someone who thinks that they are only being 'offensive'.

She will probably also attack 'the left' for getting Charlie Kirk killed.
No one actually did incitement, threats, defamation or doxing against him,
but the left still gets blamed. If she wants 'true freedom of speech', I hope
she defended every liberal and lefty who ever criticized Charlie Kirk and defended
Jimmy Kimmel. Do I even have to look to know that she obviously didn't do that?

Any sane person doesn't think that you give the Nobel peace prize to the single biggest contributor and arms supplier to the Israeli genocide on Gaza, which is still ongoing.

Trump is also, at this very moment, gearing up to start a war with Venezuela.
That's why he is blowing up those boats. He is building a case against them.
No one believes that Venezuela is smuggling a lot of drugs to the US,
but Trump wants Venezuela's OIL. Here he is admitting to it, 2 years ago.
only registered users can see external links

Cocaine Transit, not Production: Venezuela is not a major producer of cocaine; production is concentrated in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. Due to its location and weak state institutions, Venezuela serves as a transit country for a portion of Colombian cocaine, but it is not the primary route to the U.S..

Marginal Route: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data consistently shows that the vast majority of U.S.-bound cocaine (around 74-80%) is trafficked through the Pacific Ocean via Central America and Mexico, not the Caribbean. DEA reports in recent years have not even mentioned Venezuela in their cocaine sections.

Fentanyl Claims Baseless: Experts and U.S. agencies agree that Venezuela plays virtually no role in the production or trafficking of fentanyl to the U.S.. Fentanyl is primarily manufactured in Mexico using precursor chemicals from China and smuggled over land across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Lack of Public Evidence: The Trump administration has not publicly provided concrete evidence, intelligence, or data to support its claims that the boats it struck were carrying drugs, let alone the quantities or types of drugs alleged.

Intelligence Community Contradictions: A classified assessment by the U.S. National Intelligence Council reportedly contradicted the administration's claims, finding no evidence of coordination between senior Maduro officials and specific drug cartels like Tren de Aragua.

While Trump denies planning a full-scale war, the U.S. has a significant military presence in the region, is conducting lethal operations, and is implementing policies focused on weakening the Maduro regime and its control over the country's OIL resources.
That's admitting it's about the OIL, while denying it's about the OIL.
It's 100% sure not about the drugs.

His salary is peanuts. That's just 4 of his $100,000 fake Swiss watches.
His presidency boosted Trump's net worth by $3 Billion, in a year.
That's because all the presents from the people he does favors for.

In June, Trump’s clemency actions have relieved persons of about $1.348 billion in fines, restitution and forfeitures. However, various news-and-analysis sources indicate that the total number of clemency actions (pardons + commutations) by Trump in 2025 exceeds 1,600 as of mid-year.

Trump has set up a system of unchecked corruption, with selling his worthless products for ridiculous prices, crypto scams, NFTs, coins, $1 million-per-plate fundraising dinners and $1 million golf club fees. There is clear evidence of 'quid pro quo', but with the DOJ in his pocket and the Supreme Court that made him immune to the law, he can be as corrupt as he wants, with full support, and complete denial from his supporters.

Recent events include:
- October 2025: Trump hosted a dinner at the White House for wealthy donors who pledged contributions to a $200 million ballroom project.
- May 2025: A $1.5 million-per-head dinner was held for "crypto and AI innovators"
to raise money for the MAGA Inc. super PAC.
- March and April 2025: Several "candlelight dinners" at his Mar-a-Lago estate and his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club were reported to have a $1 million per plate cost.
- April 2025: Another $1 million-per-plate dinner was held for the MAGA Inc. super PAC in Washington, D.C
When events are hosted at Trump-owned properties, such as Mar-a-Lago or his Bedminster golf club, his businesses receive direct payments from the super PAC for venue rental, catering, and other services. Some dinners have been linked to the promotion of his personal business ventures. For example, a $1 million-per-head dinner for crypto and AI innovators reportedly involved some attendees paying for their seat using Trump's own branded cryptocurrency, the value of which he and his business partners personally profit from.

The MAGA Inc Super PAC has raised $198.9 million between the election and the end of June. The nonprofit Securing American Greatness, which is a dark money group because it does not disclose it donors, is raising unknown sums. Anonymous sources claim that the two groups together have raised $400 million. Those PACs have also advertised on Truth Social, providing Trump with personal income, as the majority shareholder. However, other Republican politicians primarily provide financial benefit
to Donald Trump by using political funds from the MAGA Inc Super PAC to pay for services at his private businesses.


Furious MAGA Customers Say They Got ‘Scammed’ by Trump Watches.
only registered users can see external links
They are too stupid to understand that it's only intended for 'quid pro quo'.
You're only supposed to buy them to enrich your king or to buy a whole crate of them, after he pardoned you. Don't expect any value from the product itself.

In July 2022, Nancy Mace was among 47 Republican representatives who voted
in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects existing same-sex and
interracial marriages under federal law.
only registered users can see external links

Only a few years later, while running for South Carolina governor, she posted
"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," a slogan for anti-LGBTQ+ campaigns.
only registered users can see external links

For everyone who ever thought that some Republican politicians had some personal enlightened ideas that they were principled on, think again.

That Republicans have a problem with gay marriages is to be expected, but I hear
that Trump is thinking about undermining interracial marriages, that surprised me.
This falls squarely under the definition of racism, don't delude yourself.

In July 2022, Nancy Mace was among 47 Republican representatives who voted
in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects existing same-sex and
interracial marriages under federal law.
only registered users can see external links

Only a few years later, while running for South Carolina governor, she posted
"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," a slogan for anti-LGBTQ+ campaigns.
only registered users can see external links

For everyone who ever thought that some Republican politicians had some personal enlightened ideas that they were principled on, think again.

That Republicans have a problem with gay marriages is to be expected, but I hear
that Trump is thinking about undermining interracial marriages, that surprised me.
This falls squarely under the definition of racism, don't delude yourself.

There will always be a need to limit free speech. Otherwise, it would be legal to say "Please kill my wife, and I will give you $1,000,000.".

I don't know what you mean with "in theory". Do you understand that your freedom
of speech is dependent on someone else's freedom of speech?

If you can say by law: "I fucking hate 'N-word's", is it then also legal by law to say:
"If you say the 'N-word', I fucking kill you!"? It's all just speech isn't it?

That's why your Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to allow for specific, narrow exceptions or limitations on certain categories of speech that are considered unprotected or have lesser protection. The government may regulate these types of speech, which include:
- Incitement to "imminent lawless action"
- True Threats
- Fighting Words
- Defamation
- Obscenity and Child Pornography
- Commercial Speech (false or misleading advertising)
- Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to expressive activity

So, do you think there should be 'truly freedom of speech', which is being able to say,
whatever you want say, without legal repercussions?
Or do you think there should be some legal limits?

I don't understand why you add 'unashamedly'. I would say that shame over speech is either dependent on your own morality or on the morality of 'common sense', which we are all contributing to. In any case, everyone is 'free' to say shameful things, because it doesn't result in restrictions of your literal freedom (prison, fines or damages). If you are ashamed yourself, by your own speech, that means that you stepped over your own norms of what is socially acceptable. If you get shamed by other people for your speech, it means that you stepped over THEIR norms of what is socially acceptable. For being able to say anything unashamedly, it means dropping all norms of what is socially acceptable.
One consequence is that any man can approach any women to express all his sexual desires, in explicit detail, even if he controls her professional and financial future.
I would say that dropping all social norms would be deleterious to society.

Stepping over norms what is socially acceptable to say, could result in people not liking you and excluding you socially and professionally. We call that cancellation nowadays.
To achieve free speech with regards to shame, cannot be accomplished by law. It means that society drops all social norms for how we treat each other. It means that people can say whatever they want to you, no matter how hateful or terrifying, without you thinking:
"I don't want to deal with this person anymore.".
Is this the world you want to live in?

Would it be possible in theory? What kind of society would it result into?
Or is the whole concept of society based on what is socially acceptable?

"People don't want to work"
Is that the best you can come up with, to defend what you used to dislike?
I could have predicted that you would flip on the one pro-worker idea you ever had.

I am OK with people working less, but AI isn't going to do that. It's just creating more profit for the wealthy and people needing to work for less money, if they want to eat.

Sure, sounds logical, but they want to cut money for food programs completely.
This is just an argument to do so. Most food that is affordable in your country
can be described as 'junk food'. It will require MORE money, if you want poor people
to eat healthier. The prices of fruit, vegetables, fish and unprocessed meat are still
on the rise, because of Trump deporting 'illegal' workers, because of his tariffs,
and because of the devaluation of the dollar.

Key Price Trends (September 2024 - September 2025):
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs: +5.2%
Meats (unprocessed): +8.5%
Fruits and vegetables: +1.3% (largely due to lucky weather conditions)

This is not DOGE, but the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act", resulting in cuts.
It's not smart to make people hurt, when you have a Republican in office.
Most people blame the president for that, even if he didn't cause it (Biden).
When people can clearly see that the president caused it, they will punish your party for it.
That is why Trump is pushing the strongest gerrymandering ever. Cheating, as always.

only registered users can see external links

This Gap is About to Break the Economy...
only registered users can see external links

(This is not political, it's more a warning and a stock trading advice)

OMG, you are oblivious. Renters don't have the money to 'own things'.
The 'empty building problems' in cities are the result of people not being able to afford those buildings, neither for renting nor owning.

"just because someone can afford a bulding,liberals think folks should live in it free and tear it up and leave it to others to fix"
BULLSHIT! Capitalist policies have resulted in unaffordable homes and the 'empty building problems' and people are now voting for Zohran Mamdani types, because they have good ideas to force the owners to rent out their property at an affordable price.
The owners prefer to create scarcity, to leave buildings empty, to jack up the price, rather than renting them out at a reduced price. A penalty on doing that can 'fix it'.
Why can you only think in stupid straw-men? You're indoctrinated.

For a median-priced U.S. home (around $402,500) and assuming a 20% down payment + standard lending ratios, the required annual income is about US$ 118,530 (2023). That means the median family cannot afford the median house. Only 20-22% of the American families can afford the median house.

The billionaires will own more and more and everyone else will own less and less,
until you start taxing wealth significantly.

It's simple economics; what are the billionaires doing with their money?
They are BUYING 'things', that are providing them with passive income,
like houses, factories and farms.
Who are they buying from? House owners, land owners, factory owners
and farm owners.
Then those former owners are now paying rent or part of their profits,
to the new owners; the billionaires or private equity owned by billionaires.

That passive income makes the billionaires ever richer, and everyone else,
who used to own something, is now paying the billionaires to use it.
Then the billionaires have even more money to buy 'things'.
You will have trillionaires soon. They don't let those trillions go to waste in a bank,
they will BUY MORE 'THINGS'.

It's simple economics. Is it so simple that you understand it?

American family owned farms are in big trouble, due to Trump's tariffs. Bankruptcy filings specifically for family-farm restructuring (Chapter 12) are rising: 216 Chapter 12 filings in 2024, and early 2025 figures show 259 filings between April 2024–March 2025.
Then the billionaires or their private equity comes in and buys them up.
only registered users can see external links
Those farmers voted for Trump and now they are losing their farms. FAFO.

You do, because that's why you feel the need to react.
You just cannot react with something substantial.

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links
"De-risking has caused a major shift in China's export structure away from the US"

only registered users can see external links
"Europe has belatedly sought to ‘Trump-proof’ through boosting defence investment, strengthening economic security mechanisms, and diversifying trade, including negotiations with certain Latin American countries. The UK is likewise diversifying trade – resuming talks with China and striking a deal with India."

only registered users can see external links
A working paper from Centre d’йtudes prospectives et d’informations internationales (CEPII) models a strong “trade-war scenario” and projects that U.S. exports of goods would fall by 22.9% (in volume) compared to baseline.
A blog from Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) projects that the tariffs in effect as of September 2025 will lower U.S. GDP and reduce demand for U.S. exports.
It notes that higher U.S. tariffs raise costs for U.S. exporters (through supply-chain effects) and reduce foreign demand for U.S. exports.

The blog from the European Central Bank (ECB) mentions that U.S. tariffs push partners to re-route trade away from the U.S., implying that U.S. export growth is challenged.
only registered users can see external links
"China-US trade tensions could bring more Chinese exports and lower prices to Europe"

No one, other than your Trump propaganda outlets, is saying that Trump achieved something substantial, but they ALL recognize very negative effects on the US economy.

Despite the fanfare, China gained more than it gave in the meeting and still retains major leverage. For example:
“It came at little cost to China … Importantly … President Donald Trump never once mentioned Taiwan. That was not discussed, actually.”
While Trump stressed the deals, China’s strategic interests were largely preserved,
and China didn’t publicly commit to many of the details.

More concretely, in prior months: On May 30, 2025, Trump publicly said that China had “totally violated its agreement with us” and that he would no longer be “Mr. Nice Guy.”
In June 2025 he said Xi was “extremely hard to make a deal with” and that Beijing had reneged or stalled on a framework agreement reached in Geneva.
The “deal” Trump touted was in effect a RETURN to pre-escalation tariff levels
(so little changed) and possibly tilted TOWARDS China.

Analysts say that China mostly got a tariff truce and preserved its key policy positions (e.g., around Taiwan or rare-earth export power) while giving less.
In other words: Trump lost again.

TACO: Trump Always Chickens Out.