“When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” African proverb.

You don't think that the North was justified to force the South back into the union,
so why are you arguing that Russia is justified to force Ukraine back into the union?

The American Civil War was fundamentally a conflict over whether the Southern states could leave the United States and form their own country. The Union fought to preserve the United States as a single state, while the Confederacy fought for independence. The Southern states did attempt to find a political solution before the war: there were several proposed compromises, most notably the Crittenden Compromise of December 1860, which sought to resolve the dispute over slavery and prevent secession. These efforts failed, and Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Slavery was central to the secession crisis, so the Civil War was not simply a war about “keeping everyone under one flag.” The key point is that the Confederate states were already legally part
of the United States and were attempting to secede from an existing political union.

Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991, and its independence was confirmed by referendum on December 1, 1991. Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereign and independent state, and the two countries subsequently entered agreements explicitly recognizing each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, including the 1997 Russia–Ukraine Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership. This creates an important distinction from the American Civil War: Ukraine was not a state attempting to secede from a country that Russia still legally regarded as its own; Russia had formally recognized Ukraine as an independent country. Therefore, although both conflicts can broadly be described as involving a powerful state fighting over territorial unity, their legal, political, and historical circumstances are fundamentally different.

A government linked non-profit owning rental houses IS better, because it leaves citizens with more money to improve themselves, rather than the owners of a private landlord. Every cent is then reinvested in housing, instead of going to people who don't add any value to the system.

However, I prefer PUBLIC rental houses, in which the proceeds of the rental houses goes back into the common wealth, and the citizens can democratically control what purposes that wealth should serve.

You describe the process of capitalism, which is a centralizing effect of wealth. Indeed, that is the problem, but you are describing individual private ownership with "gave each person a building". That's not PUBLIC ownership, because public ownership is COLLECTIVELY SHARED ownership.

Close, but it's also self-awareness and the ability to recognize the limits of your own knowledge, exactly like referred to with the model.

Knowledge helps you know what is true.
Experience helps you know what tends to work.
Good sense helps you make sound choices.
But wisdom also involves judgment about what truly matters,
what is worth pursuing, sacrificing for, or letting go of.

"While socialism is based on rule of the people surpressing them" No it's not, Socialism is a society based on equality, solidarity, and human dignity, in which wealth and power are democratically shared and controlled by the people.

Your explanation of democracy is quite tangled, but I assume you mean something like: "Democracy requires an educated population, because citizens need knowledge and understanding to participate meaningfully in governing society and pursuing a better, or ideal, society."

Democracy = representation + a mechanism for translating citizens' preferences into political decisions.

If by Utopia you mean: an (imagined) ideal society in which human institutions and social conditions are arranged so well that major forms of injustice, suffering, and conflict have been overcome, than that COULD be the end result of democracy, but that would require something like this:
1. People know what a good society actually looks like.
2. People's preferences are substantially aligned with that conception of the good.
3. Citizens have accurate information about the consequences of different policies.
4. The political system translates those preferences accurately, without corruption, manipulation, or disproportionate influence from elites.
5. People can resolve disagreements peacefully.
6. There are enough resources and technological capabilities to implement what people want.
7. The resulting institutions remain stable and adaptable as circumstances change.

If you think that what i say about Trump is slander, than show it to be WRONG, because statements that are substantially true are NOT defamatory, even if it damages someone's reputation.

I don't like to be accused of 'hatred of Jews'. Better put some evidence to that claim.

It's a model that describes why people are most confident in their knowledge
or abilities, when they know the least about the subject.

It's an expression of approval, but of course not in reaction to what you make of it,
or what the article is saying, but in reaction to what Mamdani is ACTUALLY doing.

Understand my position: Too much property is owned by too few people.

BASED!

Wow, you guys can run off into fantasy land.

Thanks!

However, no one should feel forced to express sadness over someone getting a horrible disease or dying, if they don't feel sadness, though.
I can promise you that I won't do that, when Trump dies.
I also don't support the idea "don't speak ill of the dead".

All I care about is honesty. If you have real arguments to express why we shouldn't be sad that the person died, then there is no reason to keep your mouth shut. The only people that should get some empathy is the people who cared about the deceased.

I want to make one thing clear: Just because Trump deserves criticism doesn't mean that Biden deserves the same criticism. Political arguments aren't a GAME, where every criticism of one side must have an equivalent criticism of the other. There is such a thing as reality. If the evidence shows that one politician did something worse, more often, or for fundamentally different reasons, then saying “Biden did something too” doesn't make the two things morally or factually equivalent.

I'm not saying president Biden was good, infallible, or above criticism. He wasn't. I'm saying that the existence of faults on both sides doesn't mean the faults are comparable. So let's look at the actual differences in conduct, priorities, and character.

1. Representing voters vs. personal loyalty
Biden: Represented his voters and party's political goals.
Trump: Has made loyalty to himself central to his political movement.
2. Keeping political promises
Biden: Generally tried to govern according to what he promised voters.
Trump: Often changes, abandons, or broadens promises when politically convenient.
3. Accepting democratic outcomes
Biden: Accepted electoral defeat and transferred power.
Trump: Refused to accept defeat and tried to overturn the 2020 result.
4. Respect for institutions
Biden: Generally worked within democratic institutions and accepted their constraints.
Trump: Treats institutions as legitimate when they serve him and enemies when they constrain him.
5. Personal power vs. public service
Biden: Primarily used political power to advance his party's agenda.
Trump: Has repeatedly put his own power, status, and political survival at the center.
6. Political opponents
Biden: Fiercely partisan, but generally treats opponents as legitimate political actors.
Trump: Frequently portrays opponents as enemies, traitors, criminals, or illegitimate.
7. Truthfulness
Biden: Has lied and exaggerated, but generally operates within an accepted factual reality.
Trump: Has made persistent, consequential false claims and repeatedly attacks inconvenient facts as conspiracies.
8. Vengeance
Biden: Does not make revenge against political opponents a central political theme.
Trump: Frequently promises or pursues retaliation against perceived enemies.
9. Corruption and self-enrichment
Biden: Has faced legitimate questions about himself and his family, but not a comparable pattern of openly intertwining the presidency with personal business interests.
Trump: Has repeatedly used the presidency and political power to advance his own financial interests, family interests, and personal wealth, creating an extraordinary level of corruption and conflicts of interest.
10. Treatment of vulnerable people
Biden: Generally frames government as having a responsibility to protect vulnerable people.
Trump: More often portrays vulnerable or unpopular groups as threats and makes harsh treatment politically valuable.
11. Human suffering
Biden: Has supported policies that caused serious suffering, but generally treats reducing suffering as a legitimate governmental goal.
Trump: More readily treats suffering inflicted on opponents or out-groups as evidence of strength or success.
12. Expertise and competence
Biden: Generally relies on institutions, career officials, and professional expertise.
Trump: More readily subordinates institutions and expertise to personal loyalty and political objectives.
13. Allies and international cooperation
Biden: Generally sees alliances and international institutions as valuable.
Trump: More often treats them as transactions based on immediate advantage and loyalty.
14. Political compromise
Biden: Comes from an older tradition of bargaining and compromise.
Trump: More often treats politics as winning, defeating, and humiliating opponents.
15. Replaceability
Biden: Ultimately accepted that his party and country could move on without him.
Trump: Has built a political movement unusually dependent on his personal leadership.
16. Policy vs. personal grievance
Biden: Politics is primarily about what government should accomplish.
Trump: Politics is unusually centered on his enemies, grievances, victories, and personal treatment.
17. Bad judgment vs. bad faith
Biden: Can be condemned for bad policies, hypocrisy, incompetence, or serious mistakes.
Trump: In addition, there is a strong case that personal power and self-interest are themselves major drivers of his politics.
18. Respect for Law and Order
Biden: Generally accepts that the law applies to him and that legal constraints are legitimate.
Trump: Repeatedly treats legal constraints as obstacles to overcome and has made attacking prosecutors, courts, and legal proceedings against him part of his political strategy.
19. Accountability
Biden: Generally accepts that mistakes and failures are part of governing.
Trump: Rarely accepts responsibility; failures are typically blamed on enemies, institutions, or conspiracies.

Thanks

Anthony Fauci is Evil Satan Bastard Man!
only registered users can see external links

Professor Dave sciences the shit out of this nonsense.
Not watching it means that you value your ignorance.

The Consequences of Voting for Cruelty
only registered users can see external links

We all have different ways to celebrate the start of a new day.
Nice that you shared yours.

The 8 stages of climate change denial:

1. “Climate change isn’t happening.”
“The Earth isn’t warming.”

2. “It’s happening, but humans aren’t causing it.”
“Climate has always changed.”

3. “Humans are contributing, but it won’t be serious.”
“A few degrees won’t make much difference.”

4. “It may be serious, but scientists aren’t certain.”
“There’s too much uncertainty to justify drastic action.”

5. “It’s serious, but action would be too expensive/impractical.”
“We need jobs and economic growth first.”

6. “Action is pointless because others won’t act.”
“Why should I/we change, if others don't?”

7. “It’s too late anyway.”
“We’ve already gone too far, so there’s no point trying.”

8. “Technology will solve it later.”
“We don't need to change now; future technology will take care of it.”

Some people seem to go directly from 1 or 3 to 7; “Climate change isn't happening” or
“it won't be that bad” straight to “it's too late anyway.” No need to understand the science, consider the evidence, or explore the solutions.

But what do we think of people who approach other problems in their own lives this way? We often criticize someone with an addiction, financial problems, or another personal struggle for refusing to face reality, take responsibility, and look for solutions.
We may even blame them for the consequences of their choices.

Why does that standard disappear when the problem is global, rather than personal?
Why shouldn't personal responsibility matter, when humanity itself is at stake?
This does not mean that every individual needs to dramatically change their lifestyle
or personally “solve” climate change. In fact, telling ordinary people that they alone are responsible can be a convenient way for those with the most power to avoid their own responsibility. Our responsibility is different: to understand the problem, reject fatalism, demand effective solutions, and hold the people and institutions with the power to make systemic change accountable.

We don't have to solve the problem alone. But we should refuse to use its size
as an excuse for doing nothing.

Humanity has solved enormous problems before. We have eradicated smallpox, dramatically reduced child mortality, brought hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty, and tackled the hole in the ozone layer. These problems weren't simple or solved overnight. They required recognizing the problem, developing solutions, organizing around them, and continuing to improve.
Climate change is a huge problem, but huge does not mean unsolvable.
We already have many of the solutions: renewable energy, batteries, electric transport, heat pumps, efficient buildings, cleaner industry, ecosystem restoration and carbon removal.
Many of these solutions can make life better, not worse: cleaner air, quieter cities, more comfortable homes, cheaper and more secure energy, better public transport, healthier ecosystems and less dependence on fossil fuels.

Don't ask “How do we sacrifice our way of life to solve climate change?”, but ask:
“How do we build a better way of life while solving one of humanity's biggest problems?”

That means that when someone resists climate action, we should first ask:

1. What exactly are they rejecting?
The science? The severity? Human responsibility? The feasibility of solutions?
Or their own ability to make a difference?

2. What value or fear is behind it?
Economic security? Fairness? Distrust of institutions? Fear of lifestyle change?
Political identity? Or simply feeling powerless?

3. What evidence actually addresses that concern?
A scientific concern needs a scientific answer.
An economic concern needs an economic answer.
A concern about fairness needs a fair solution.

4. What is the smallest constructive step they can accept?
Instead of asking “Do you believe in climate change?”, ask:
“Given what you know, do you seriously want to do nothing?”

Ask yourself why you are willing to accept some threats as real and urgent,
sometimes supporting enormous financial costs, restrictions, risks, and sacrifices
of other people's lives or rights, while dismissing climate change despite the
overwhelming evidence that it is happening and that human activity is driving it.

Is the problem really that you don't believe action is necessary?
Or is it that you don't like what climate action might ask of you?

You don't have to agree on what the response should be. But if you accept that climate change is happening and that it poses serious risks, why is “do nothing” the conclusion?

You are already willing to make difficult choices when you believe something threatens you, your family, or your country. Climate change is no different in that regard.
The question is simply whether you are willing to extend that same willingness to act
to a problem that affects humanity as a whole.

Humanity's greatest achievements didn't come from deciding that a problem was too big
to solve. They came from deciding that because the problem was big, it was worth solving.

Some people are keyboard warriors (there is a lot of them here,
no exceptions for yours truly), some people join "No Kings!" protests,
or go on a boat to interfere with whale hunting or dumping toxic waste
in the ocean. Other people flood the streets to communicate their lack
of empathy or even hate for the least powerful and fortunate people
in the world. What do you consider "doing a damn thing"?

Everyone can promote world peace in a small way, but citizens can only become a big factor, if they dedicate their lives to a cause. It also requires talents that not everyone has, because the 'job' mainly requires convincing other people.

Convincing people is extraordinarily difficult because you're not just transferring information, you’re trying to change another human being's internal model of the world. We have been trying to do that for each other for years now, and I think we can agree that we didn't have great success. lol

Just having an interest in politics doesn't mean that you can 'sell' politics to other people. You can learn some skills, but there are talents and natural advantages that you cannot learn, but sometimes compensate for. I have learned some of them on the job, but I know my limitations. I also know my strengths, and what they are useful for. Basically, I'm a problem solver.
I learned this in an in-between job, where I received the most recognition.
It was when I could analyze a problem, understand its causes, and work out a solution. That experience carried into the jobs that followed, and it gradually became part of my role. Today, I solve and implement solutions, and I also help others do the same. It's only part of my work, but it's a big enough part, and one where I can really use my strengths.
It's in Big Pharma, who make money from people who suffer, but without us they would suffer worse and die. Pharmaceutical products help people lead a normal life and contribute to society. This enriches people who don't add any value, but that is a system that humanity has chosen. We could choose something better.

On a large scale, solving problems requires an organization that combines different strengths. I have the skills to execute, but execution depends on having permission, authority, resources, information, and institutional access. A person can be capable of solving a problem but, I could not be effective, without my employers system, that provides me the mandate to make relevant decision, allocate the money, change the policy, or mobilize the people required.

Unless you have the skills, attributes, mandate and time to have a big impact, as an average citizen you can affect the world on a small scale, in some or more of the following ways:

1. Be a good person to the people around you.
2. Support people who are struggling.
3. Donate money to effective causes.
4. Build an accurate, reality-based understanding of the world.
5. Vote and participate in democracy with the common good in mind.
6. Stay informed about important public issues.
7. Use your professional skills for good.
8. Make your workplace better for other people.
9. Mentor, teach, or help someone advance.
10. Strengthen your local community and social connections.
11. Volunteer a small, sustainable amount of time.
12. Reduce unnecessary consumption and waste.
13. Make major purchases environmentally and socially responsible.
14. Invest in home insulation and energy efficiency.
15. Invest in solar power and other clean energy.
16. Replace fossil-fuel systems with electric alternatives where practical.
17. Reduce dependence on private-car transport and fossil fuels.
18. Invest your savings in productive, responsible businesses and infrastructure.
19. Use your influence as a consumer, employee, citizen, and investor.
20. Share useful knowledge, skills, and opportunities with others.
21. Build a good, sustainable life rather than sacrificing yourself to the cause.

Why would leopoldij need to do anything for world peace?
As far as I know he doesn't have a high position in a government?

I thought you meant leopoldij at first, and then I remembered the Pope.
"Oh, he means the Pope, that makes sense." Not to you of course.

And you think you don't have that with for profit healthcare?
The death panels are already there, controlled by insurance companies.
They decide if your life is worth the money, even if you are 20 years old.
Sadly, they don't provide the palliative sedation, you just suffer and die CHEAPLY.

Pope Leo only got it, because as an American he confronted Trump.
He tried to prevent a war between the US and Venezuela.
Maybe it worked, because the violence of the takeover was minimal.
Venezuela is now under control and the US is stealing their money,
but maybe the US will let them keep some of the money for their own oil.
At least, the US has relaxed some of the sanctions.
Maybe, that's what Pope Leo got out of the meetings with JD Vance.
And that's maybe worth a Nobel peace prize these days.

It obviously didn't work to prevent a war with Iran, which is THE WAR that Israel had been demanding for decades, but even Republican presidents were smart enough to not start. Didn't I predict that it would be a fucking mess?
It now looks that Iran wants to stretch this war until the next POTUS, while they keep the Strait of Hormuz closed.
Maybe you don't realize what a mess this will be for the US.
It's not that you need this oil so much, it's more that you will loose any goodwill from other countries that you might still have.

Honestly, I see one good thing coming from it; it will speed up the transition
to renewable energy. And since Trump will prevent that from happening in the US, it will put you behind even further. The billionaires will still make lots of money, don't worry about that. It will just be devastating to the rest of you.
It will be great for China, who will make all the solar panels, wind turbines
and batteries. They will be the next superpower. I hope they'll only take Taiwan.

In this case, I'm on your side; you couldn't believe that anyone still thinks
that Trump would deserve The Nobel peace prize either.

Honestly, my first reactions was: "NOOOOO, have they gone completely mad!"
Fortunately, a simple search saved me from giving up on the world completely.

Absolute hypocrisy, once again. You just had the United States 250th anniversary celebrations, which were significantly taxpayer-funded, and turned out into one complete Trump celebration.

Here's another recent example:
Harriet Hageman — Wyoming — August 2025
Where: National Museum of Military Vehicles, Dubois, Wyoming
Event: Official congressional town hall
Hageman's town hall was an official constituent event. The New Yorker attended and described the meeting as intensely political, with discussion of Trump, federal policy, veterans, the First Amendment and other contentious issues.
Bob Culver of the Jackson Hole Tea Party was present at the event and engaged in the discussion afterward.
The Jackson Hole Tea Party is not simply a generic civic organization. It is part of the Tea Party movement, a conservative political movement that has been closely aligned with the Republican Party and advocates limited government, lower taxes and conservative candidates/policies.

DSA isn't technically a political party. NYC-DSA is organized as a 501(c)(4) social-welfare organization. Also, DSA was simply one of several organizations invited because of its work on transit.
Other invited organizations were:
- Fair Fares NYC
- Transportation Alternatives
- NYC-DSA's transit working group
- Riders Alliance

Trump has been NOMINATED for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize,
but I'm sure that they can find 'some' people who deserve it more.

Fluoride as an element is present on almost every place on Earth. A 'clean' river may have 0.1–0.3 mg/L fluoride in the water, depending on its geology. If the river has naturally fluoride-rich geology, a remote/natural river can have more fluoride than
an urban river.

Even bottled water has fluoride in it. Some bottled waters have more fluoride than fluoridated tap water, because fluoride occurs naturally in the groundwater or spring source. EU law requires the label to include an analytical composition listing its characteristic constituents. Above 1.5 mg/L, natural mineral water must carry a warning that it is unsuitable for infants and young children. Currently, the European benchmark for daily consumption is 3.3 mg of fluoride per day, from all sources. EFSA established this in its 2025 reassessment as a “safe level of intake” for adults and everyone over
8 y.o.. It is deliberately conservative and is intended to cover potential effects on the nervous system, thyroid, and bones.

According to ChatGPT (over multiple inquiries):

Yes, a disproportionate number of America's worst lead-pipe problems are in older, heavily urbanized cities that currently vote Democratic. But that is largely an age/industrialization/geography phenomenon, not evidence that Democratic cities uniquely created the problem.
Cities/water utilities can be responsible for some or all of the relevant infrastructure, but ownership varies by jurisdiction, and the responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water is broader than simply “who owns the pipe?”.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed in November 2021, provided:
- $15 billion specifically for lead service-line identification and replacement over 5 years
- Another $11.7 billion in general Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which could also be used for lead-pipe replacement
- $50 billion total for drinking-water and wastewater infrastructure.

The Senate vote was 69–30. All 50 Democrats voted for it, along with 19 Republicans.
The final House vote was 228–206. 13 Republicans voted for it and 6 Democrats voted against it.
The infrastructure law was bipartisan, but the overwhelming majority of House Republicans opposed it. The LCRI was finalized on October 30, 2024, just before Trump took office. Trump's general deregulation agenda created a threat to the LCRI, but the EPA chose to defend it.

Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit and Cincinnati all have Democratic political environments, yet they're pursuing substantial replacement programs. Pittsburgh in particular is doing exceptionally well. Pittsburgh Water says it replaced its 14,000th lead service line by December 2025 and is on track to eliminate all residential lead lines in its service area by the end of 2027.

There is also a big difference in cost:
Chicago: ~$31,000/line
Evanston: ~$15,000/line
Elgin: ~$10,950/line
Riverside: ~$9,200/line

The same contractors sometimes work in these communities. One explanation identified was that the suburbs make it easier to replace multiple lines along a block at once and have fewer administrative/permit costs.

The project is much more expensive in Chicago, because it has an extremely complicated underground environment. You're not just digging a hole and replacing a pipe: you're working around water mains, gas lines, electrical infrastructure, sewer lines, telecommunications, streets and sidewalks. And because Chicago is so old and densely built, some of this infrastructure is very difficult to map precisely.

Rural areas in the U.S. still have some lead water pipes, but generally far fewer than older industrial cities. Many rural households historically relied on private wells rather than centralized water systems, so they never had as many lead service lines to begin with. The remaining problem is partly an infrastructure-age issue: lead pipes are concentrated in communities that built extensive water systems during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and some smaller communities also have incomplete records about where lead lines remain.

We don't have fluoride in our tap water.
Are liberals the only people who drink tap water?
By the way, many areas in your country are suffering from tap water that is polluted with Lead, Manganese, Arsenic, Mercury, Nitrate, PFAS and Pesticide residues, which also can/will affect the brains of children.

The Trump EPA has proposed or made changes that reduce environmental monitoring
and transparency, related to toxins in tap water.

That mom and pop stores and smaller chain stores are mostly demolished by the big corporations and private equity is the same cause for why food has been so expensive. Actually, most of the reason are the monopolies, a small number of mega-corporations, controlling large parts of the food chain.
Mamdani's plan focuses heavily on bypassing monopolies for a specific "core basket" of fresh, perishable staples, by sourcing fruits and vegetables directly
from regional farms in upstate New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
There are no choices without consequences.

There are about 6 different topics that he supposedly lied about. In none of these cases did he clearly lie.

March 2020 masks: Incomplete / strategically framed
PPE shortage rationale: Not fully candid initially
Wuhan/gain-of-function: Interpreted consistently with the narrow definition
6-foot rule: Weakly evidenced / arbitrary, but easy to remember
Lab-leak origins: Said that there was no reason to suspect intent
“I am the science”: Rhetorical overreach

It's a stupid inefficient practice, but it seems that hundreds or even thousands of forms for standard appropriations, staff assignments and other low level documents are asking for a director's signature, while that is practically nonsense. It seems that your government agencies have used auto pens a lot. That's mostly your government's inability to solve issues. A mechanical pen device that's rare in my country.
Some government agencies use pre-printed signatures or stamps or digital signatures. Not everything has to be signed by a director, but sometimes they use
the signature of the person who is leading the department, without actually requiring authorization. It's a common long-established practice in the US, because you have
a more hierarchical society. Individual officeholders care about their signature,
as the visible symbol of authority.

Your own president praised him, but now your cult says "Attack him!"
so you do, without having the slightest idea why.
Did you always want to be a DOG?

A contempt vote for using your 5th amendment right?
Maybe he should have just talked about the DOW.
Or got his black book of burns out.

Your president was talking about parasite medicine
and purging people with bleach for fucks sake.
Your media was fearmongering after they were ALL VAXXED.
All your politicians got vaxxed before everyone else.
That's the hypocrisy and dumbassery that Fauchi had to deal with.

And what is Trump doing now? Eliminating all the emergency capacity for the next pandemic, while infections are rushing over your country like never before, because the people who's job it is to prevent that have been cut to breaking point. If Trump was actually a Russian operative planted to destroy your country, he couldn't be doing a better job.

Have you seen the stack of files for just the concept of a plan for Trump's ACA replacement? It got NOWHERE, because his people are not up to the challenge.
All they did was break parts of it.
That's just one small detail of what it takes to run a country.
Just the sheer complexity of working in a bigger company would astound you.
Since you don't have any experience on that, you don't know enough to know
how much you don't know.

It's the list of evil shit done by conservatives, right-wingers and fascists.
Islamic terrorists are conservatives too. You confirm that when you find it difficult
to condemn them for a terrorist attack on gays and queers celebrating their freedom.

The devastation is obscured by the ash clouds, from your mountain?

Do you know how ignorant and arrogant you are for thinking that even a cent of your tax-dollars goes to my 'welfare'. I pay for that 'welfare', for my fellow Dutch people, and I have used almost none of that during my life.

It's also very weird how angry you get about the idea of citizens looking out for each other. How much more should go to the billionaires or trillionaires, before YOUR life is supposed to get a bit better?

I call Trump a fascist, because he is using the EXACT SAME authoritarian playbook that all fascist in history used to gain power and maximize it to absolute rule.
You have been told about tyranny all your life, but you look the other way when
it's staring its dead eyes in yours.

Phart, please, you are trusting the AI system of the "Sieg heiling" billionaire
Trump enabler, who one day tweaked his AI to make it call itself "MechaHitler"
and generated outputs that were wildly antisemitic, racist, and pro-Nazi.
Don't you think that you are being a bit ridiculous?

I already provided the characteristics that are considered to define fascism, and showed you how it fitted Trump for the most part. In the meantime he did lots of more things to make those characteristics fit even more.
At that time, he hadn't started a war yet. Now he attacked Iran under false pretenses, without getting permission from Congress, lying to the public, and committing serious war-crimes. He bombed a girl-school and then bombed the same area again in a second wave, killing first responders. Others include strikes
on homes or civilian neighborhoods, attacks on medical facilities or sites treating casualties, attacks on civilian infrastructure (bridges, roads, utilities), attacks on nuclear facilities (I understand that these are the primary targets, but because of
the nuclear risk to civilians it is considered a war-crime).

Trump attacked Venezuela and kidnapped their president Nicolбs Maduro, who is still in custody with a trial date for June 1, 2027. Venezuelan government is now controlled by the US, the US has taken control of oil-related revenues, valued around $13 billion for an almost bankrupt state, and there are part of the money is suspected to be transferred to private offshore bank accounts.

The sanctions on Cuba are causing a complete collapse. Fuel shortages have caused repeated nationwide blackouts. Citizens are facing shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods. The situation is getting desperate.

Add this to the record that was already checking off most characteristics of fascism, and only your side still denies it.

I will agree that making this a success is the most difficult thing that he is attempting.
However, the building is the easiest part. A city can lend money at low rates (2.5%), buy a building and use it at no profit. Grocery Stores often have to pay rent at cap rates between 5.5% and 6.7%, to some private equity firm.

Rich people are allowed to buy in these stores too. No card, ID or anything required.

The previous administration left Mamdani with a $12 billion budget deficit.
As of July 2026, the administration announced that the current budget deficit
has officially been brought down to zero ($0) and the budget is fully balanced.

If the job isn't too complicated.
Running a garage? Sure! Running a country? NOOOOOOOO!!!

Does anyone remember The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Native American genocide, Slavery, The American Civil War, The Gilded Age, The Holocaust, Jim Crow and Segregation, Ku Klux Klan lynchings, McCarthyism, the Korean and Vietnam Wars,
The First Gulf War, The War in Afghanistan, The Second Gulf War and The Iran War?

The ramblings of a complete lunatic. You have no self-respect.

"taxing the rich to feed the cheap scates" is how serfs became citizens.
You're indoctrinated by the wealthy with deeply un-American ideas.
You probably have The Constitution printed on your boxers,
but you have no idea what these words mean.

The Declaration of Independence is pretty clear about it:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

If you want to interpret it to fit your view, maybe you should read what the founding fathers intended with it.

James Madison (1751–1836) was one of the principal architects of the United States Constitution and later became the fourth President of the United States. In 1787–1788, while the American states were debating whether to adopt the new Constitution, Madison wrote a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius.” In Federalist No. 51, published in 1788, he explained the principles he believed were necessary to preserve a free republic. The essay remains important because it describes a central vision of the American system: freedom requires that power must never become concentrated and unchecked.

Madison began from a realistic view of human nature. He argued that people who hold power will naturally have interests of their own, and therefore a free society cannot depend on the virtue of those in authority. His famous statement, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” expresses the idea that every form of power needs limits. The purpose of constitutional design was therefore not simply to create government, but to create a system in which power would restrain itself.

Madison also recognized that society would always contain different interests, groups, and classes of citizens. People would differ in wealth, beliefs, occupations, and goals, creating competing forces within society. He did not believe these differences could or should be eliminated. Instead, he argued that a healthy republic must prevent any one group from becoming powerful enough to dominate others. As he wrote, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

The broader principle behind Madison’s vision is that liberty is threatened whenever power becomes concentrated without effective checks. The founders were concerned not only with preventing government tyranny, but with ensuring that no faction, class, or institution could gain enough influence to override the rights and independence of ordinary citizens. This principle remains central to debates about how a republic should balance freedom, power, and the protection of its people.

Being an asshole to white people too, doesn't make a KKK member NOT racist.
Sometimes they do their job, most times they are being racist fucks.
Probably they are not even ALL racist fucks. It's a job that pays well,
so there are likely people doing it who are decent people.

A Canadian, who STILL wants to be in the US, and then attacks another girl for wearing a 'USA 250 anniversary' shirt? I don't buy that for a second.

What Trump did to your USA 250 anniversary is definitely not patriotic.
Here are some ways that made it a big DISGRACE:

1. A milestone that should have united Americans instead became another battlefield in the country’s political war, deepening division rather than celebrating a shared identity.
2. Trump used the anniversary as a platform to promote his own political identity, turning a national commemoration into an extension of his personal brand and presidency.
3. Trump’s anniversary operation redirected money, sponsorship opportunities, and access toward his allies and political network, turning a national celebration into a vehicle for political influence and personal benefit.
4. The celebration’s funding structure drew criticism over the use of public resources, private donations, and sponsorships, with concerns that a national commemoration was being used to benefit politically connected interests.
5. The Trump-backed “Freedom 250” effort displaced the bipartisan America250 process and transformed a national commemoration into a Trump-aligned political production.
6. By tying a national anniversary celebration so closely to his own political identity, Trump alienated artists and participants who did not want their work used to legitimize a partisan event.
7. A celebration intended to showcase American achievement was marred by rushed planning, organizational failures, and an execution that fell far below the standard expected for a 250th anniversary event.
8. Attendees faced basic comfort and planning failures, including inadequate shade, seating, food access, and protection from extreme heat.
9. Operational breakdowns — including technical failures, power problems, and food-storage issues — turned a major national event into a public embarrassment.
10. Extreme weather exposed inadequate safety planning, with failures in preparing for dangerous heat, shelter needs, and crowd management.
11. The anniversary’s imagery, projects, and presentation placed Trump’s persona and legacy at the center of a national commemoration, overshadowing the broader history and achievements of the United States.
12. Instead of leaving Americans with pride in a historic milestone, the celebration became associated by many with division, self-promotion, waste, chaos, and a missed opportunity for genuine national reflection.

As a Dutchman who believes deeply in democracy, impartial justice, and accountable government, this disgrace was a painful reminder that even an occasion of such historic importance was not spared from being turned into a vehicle for division and personal ambition. A 250th anniversary should have been a moment to reflect on the long struggle to build and preserve a democratic society: the belief that no person is above the law,
that justice should not depend on power or privilege, and that government must ultimately answer to its citizens. Seeing such a historic occasion become associated with division, personal glorification, and dysfunction was deeply painful.

Wow, Mark Cuban asked Grok! That settles it then.
Would be the first thing that Mamdani will fail on,
because he is checking off every single one of his promises.

He was completely open about everything, and now he is DOING IT ALL!
That's DEMOCRACY, so I see why you lot don't like it.

You don't know your own laws, dimwit.

Will you say the same about Kyle Rittenhouse? He was HOLDING his gun.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects peaceful speech, assembly, and criticism of the government, including police and federal agents.

Alex Pretti was only talking to them. It was the ICE agents who turned violent.

• Being armed is not, by itself, grounds for being shot.
In many U.S. states, carrying a firearm is legal under state law (subject to restrictions). The use of deadly force by law enforcement is judged by whether the person posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, not simply by whether they possessed a firearm.

• Obstructing law enforcement does not authorize summary execution.
Even if someone commits crimes such as trespassing, resisting, or obstructing officers, the legal remedy is arrest and prosecution. Deadly force is not a lawful punishment for those offenses.

• "Brandishing" has a specific legal meaning.
Simply having a firearm visible is different from threatening someone with it. Whether a person "brandished" a weapon is a factual question that depends on the evidence, including video, witness testimony, and forensic evidence.

• The governing legal standard is objective reasonableness.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Connor, an officer's use of force is judged based on whether it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, considering what the officer reasonably perceived at the time.

• Deadly force has additional constitutional limits.
In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court held that deadly force generally cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

Better protect your rights, or the next one who gets shot by police is you.

They are not, they are criminals. Nuremberg trials for every single one of them.

You don't even know what these terms mean.
Hitler was a fascist, like Trump. Trump has actually cited "Mein Kampf".
And his biggest campaign funder was "Sieg heiling" on stage.

The regimes that called themselves 'communist' were nothing but.
They were authoritarian state-capitalist systems.

Your regime is starving people, and Mamdani is feeding the people.
No Americans would EVER vote for a socialist, if your side would ever do
ANYTHING good for them. You fucked up! That's why you're losing to socialists.

Do you even know that military personnel get to shop in government provided supermarkets? They get their food a lot cheaper.

They only require some $70 million in city funding for startup costs. Afterwards, the costs to the public will be much lower. The plan is not simply "sell groceries 30% cheaper and absorb the loss." The plan is to reduce operating costs in several ways so that the required subsidy is smaller than it otherwise would be. The methods include:
• No profit requirement. A city-owned store would not need to generate returns for private owners or shareholders.
• Reduced real estate costs. The city could use publicly owned buildings or subsidize rent, which is one of the largest expenses for grocery stores in New York.
• Bulk purchasing. Buying large quantities directly from suppliers could reduce wholesale costs, although the extent depends on the scale of the store network.
• Simpler operations. Focusing on staple foods and carrying fewer products can lower inventory, labor, and spoilage costs.
• Public financing. The city can borrow at relatively low interest rates for capital investments.

If that doesn't operate at cost, they will indeed get that money from the rich,
to feed the people who need it.

If you rob from the government, what do they do to you, thank you?
Only wealthy people like Trump and Elon are allowed to steal from the government.

Can you tell this story to the ICE officers who shot and killed Alex Pretti?

Funny! Meanwhile, it makes his 'ratings' go up.
People seam to like it when their need to eat doesn't enrich corporations.
But, maybe that's just what they they think in New York.
In a state like Texas, those crazy socialists don't stand a chance, right?

only registered users can see external links

Yet another one of those 'dangerous Muslims' running for office.
I'm surprised that I don't hear any fearmongering about him.

"You deserve to go to a good school, get healthcare, and a good job."
only registered users can see external links
Yep, a crazy radical, for saying what most Americans believe.

Or do you think that I should add some weasel words to make you support it:
"Everyone deserves the opportunity to go to a good school, access to healthcare,
and have the opportunity to get a good job." like all your fake ass bitch politicians do.
--------------------------------------- added after 20 hours

Now he won the Michigan Democratic primary with 49% of the votes,
against Haley Stevens, who was pushed by more than $60 million in total outsider spending, like AIPAC, Super PACs and other big moneyed groups.

The 'targeted intervention' was already in place. Obama and the EU negotiated the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program and required extensive international inspections. The agreement reduced Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, limited enrichment levels and centrifuges, and gave the IAEA broad access to verify compliance. It was built on intelligence assessments that Iran had not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon, and it created a verification system to ensure its nuclear activities remained peaceful. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also issued a religious ruling stating that nuclear weapons were forbidden under Islam.

Of course Israel claimed the opposite, but that is an obvious lie, because
they claimed for DECADES that Iran was MONTHS from having a nuke.

Only AFTER the Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, Iran gradually breached the deal’s limits, increasing uranium enrichment and expanding its nuclear capabilities.

Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA undermined US credibility and made future diplomacy harder. After proving that a signed agreement could be reversed, the US lost leverage; what is being offered now is FAR WEAKER than the strict limits and inspections the original deal achieved.

How it would work, is to NOT elect an untrustworthy FUCK-UP for president.

And that same FUCK-UP is now seeking to help Saudi Arabia develop
a civilian nuclear program, including uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, without requiring anything close to the inspection and restriction regime
that Iran accepted under the JCPOA. Do you remember that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and none were Iranians?

They process everything through very simple patterns:

Complex crisis → uncertainty and fear → simple explanation → identifiable enemy → simple solution

If you understand multiple interacting factors, you see:

Virus biology + human behavior + public health capacity + healthcare systems + communication + economics + political decisions + social trust → pandemic outcomes

I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe that Fauci was doing anything nefarious, other then trying to manage stupid people, by not being fully candid
about everything, all the time.

As a result, they accuse him of killing millions of people, while simultaneously
calling Covid "just a cold". However, the recent charades are just a distraction.
They scored very well with fearmongering, so this is their attempt to regain support.