You understand the concept of a "perjury trap" when it's a Republican.

Phart showed videos where people in poor countries are doing stupid things,
as an example of their low IQ.

Let's assess an example. India has the highest number of road deaths in the world, in terms of absolute fatalities. I saw the TV-show Deadliest Roads, where they followed a truck-driver, with the most beat-up truck you ever saw. He sat on a crate, because he had no seat, his steering had about half a rotation of play, his brakes hardly functioned, and he drove from early in the morning till late in the evening, along crumbling roads on the edge of deep drops. Phart would say that this truck-driver is absolutely crazy, and he must have a very low IQ. That assumes that the truck-driver doesn't understand his danger. The reality is that he knows exactly that he is risking his life every day, but he is working to feed his family. He doesn't make enough money to fix his truck. In other words; the system that he is living (and dying) under is FORCING him to ACT stupid. That's no reason to assume that he has low IQ.

Then I see lots of Americans ACTING stupid, like believing in obvious nonsense,
so I ask phart if they are forced to act stupid. If they are NOT, that's a good reason
to assume that they have low IQ.

Amartya Sen (Indian Nobel Prize winning economist): "People should be judged
by the options genuinely available to them, not by the outcomes they endure."

Actually privately owned DOES mean that it's OK to rob people.
There are hardly any laws or regulations left, restricting them.

When a system is publicly owned, there is no profit incentive. The only incentive is efficiency; maximizing benefit for the user and minimizing cost for the tax-payer.
When the user and the tax-payer are the same group, it's up to them to decide the quality of service vs the cost. They get what they pay for.

The only limits on private companies robbing their employees and their customers is them losing all their employees and customers. Since there are ever more monopolies in both market and employment, private companies are getting away with ever more robbing. The customer is not getting what they pay for, and the employee is not getting what they work for, they are both getting the scraps that are left, after the private owners satisfied their hunger.

And then you would gleefully forbid employees from organizing themselves and striking, making it even easier for companies to rob their employees.

I see no argument from you for why an employer should be allowed to become a millionaire or billionaire from maximizing profit and minimizing the benefit for your neighbor. You will allow them to exploit the need of the community as much as they can, while you simultaneously deny their responsibility, saying that it is on those nurses when people die.

Understand that companies will always do the maximum possible or allowed harm,
to maximize their profits. It's up to citizens to push back, to protect their community.

If you want to take away the right of workers to strike, because they have a responsibility for people's lives, then you should come up with alternatives for them not getting exploited.

When those nurses are spread to thin, over way too many patients, it's also their responsibility to act, because patients are not receiving proper care.

When have you ever found me to oppose science on any subject?

It depends. Do you think that Congress has a justification to subpoena the Clintons?


ChatGPT: Here is a concise, argumentative summary focused specifically on when Congress has a legitimate legislative purpose, to investigate and issue subpoenas
to support its legislative and oversight functions:

- Congress has a legitimate legislative purpose when an investigation informs the drafting, amendment, or repeal of legislation within its constitutional authority.

- A purpose is legitimate when the inquiry assesses whether existing laws are working as intended or whether additional statutory controls are needed.

- Oversight of the executive branch qualifies when the investigation evaluates the implementation, efficiency, or integrity of federal programs or agencies.

- Investigations may legitimately expose systemic problems, conflicts of interest,
or corruption insofar as the findings could lead to legislative remedies.

- The purpose remains legitimate even if the investigation has political consequences,
so long as legislation, not punishment or exposure for its own sake, is a plausible end.


Clinton held no federal office during most Epstein-related criminal activity and he is a private citizen now.
He has already publicly denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
He has publicly agreed with releasing all Epstein files related to him.
He is not accused of any wrongdoing.
The committee has not articulated specific legislation that requires
his testimony rather than documents or expert witnesses.

only registered users can see external links

The strike isn’t just about higher pay (though that’s part of it). It’s a broad labor action driven by multiple long‑standing workplace and patient‑care concerns.

Here’s what the nurses are striking for:

-Safe staffing levels: Nurses want limits on how many patients one nurse is expected to care for at a time, so care is safer and less exhausting. Many say chronic understaffing threatens patient and worker safety.

- Workplace safety protections: They’re demanding stronger measures to protect against violence from patients or visitors, a significant and growing concern on hospital units.

- Healthcare benefits: The union says hospitals have resisted guaranteeing full healthcare coverage for nurses and are proposing changes that could reduce benefits.

- Wages/Pay: Nurses also want pay that better reflects their workload and the high cost of living in NYC, though the precise numbers being discussed are disputed between unions and hospital management.

What triggered the strike now?

Contracts for nearly 15,000 nurses at major New York private hospitals (like Mount Sinai, Montefiore, and NewYork‑Presbyterian) expired December 31, 2025, and months of negotiations failed to resolve core issues before the nurses formally walked out in early January 2026.

So that's why they did that "in the middle of winter during flu season".

Yes, "it's supposed to better your community", that's mostly the reason for their strike.

If these jobs are not supposed to make anyone a millionaire, then why do allow them under private ownership, which is exactly intended to enrich the owners.
You are literally telling me that education and healthcare should be exempt from
private wealth creation, while you always argue that they should be privately owned.
Did you not even think of that, before you wrote it?

There is no process for determining the average IQ of citizens of a country, by method of eye witness observations. There are stupid people in all countries.
Your videos show people who are forced to do stupid things out of poverty and desperation. That is not evidence for their IQ.

Most flat earthers on the internet are Americans. Does that make all Americans stupid?
Are they forced to think stupid ideas?

You are confusing 2 things here:
1) You understanding that Trump committed several crimes,
when he wasn't president, based on evidence.
2) Trump getting found guilty in a court of law.

You are calling lots of people guilty of crimes, when they are not found guilty in a court of law, so your standards for that are very inconsistent.

Even when Trump is found guilty or liable in a court of law, you will deny it anyway, without any justification for calling the involved courts illegitimate.

The fact that he is president NOW, does not dismiss his crimes when he wasn't. Not even the new ruling of the Supreme Court is saying that. They made him only mostly immune to the law for the time AS president, as far as the job of president allows.

Here is your answer, but you should know that:
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that former President Donald J. Trump could not be barred from running for president by individual states applying the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment, when the Colorado Supreme Court had excluded Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot. The Supreme Court ruled that Only Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3 for federal office, which would mean that Congress would need to enact a law or use a constitutionally valid enforcement mechanism to apply Section 3 to a federal candidate. They didn't. Importantly, the Supreme Court’s ruling did NOT decide whether Trump actually engaged in insurrection or whether Section 3 on its face applies to the presidency.
That means that NO court (kangaroo or Supreme) could have disqualified Trump from running for office, EVEN IF he was found guilty of treason. He could have still ran for office, from his prison cell. It was only up to Congress and the better judgement of the American voters.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't show up, so they have that power. The Clintons’ attorneys sent a letter to Comer arguing that the subpoenas are “invalid and legally unenforceable” and politically motivated.
It will be up to a judge to decide if that is defensible. If it is, then the contempt falls flat, if it isn't, they can punish him and/or force him
to show up anyway. However, it is likely that a court would either strike down or significantly narrow these subpoenas, if Congress
tries to enforce them.

What justification does Congress have to subpoena Bill Clinton?
Clinton held no federal office during most Epstein-related criminal activity and he is a private citizen now.
He has already publicly denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
He has publicly agreed with releasing all Epstein files related to him.
He is not accused of any wrongdoing.
The committee has not articulated specific legislation that requires
his testimony rather than documents or expert witnesses.

So, what's your opinion on The House Oversight Committee issuing a formal subpoena to Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ on August 5, for failing to produce the complete, unredacted files related to Jeffrey Epstein, including classified and ongoing investigative material, as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act?
That's a government official, clearly breaking the law, which is
exactly what Congress’s investigative power is intended for.

I am doing the best that is possible, but no reasoning would convince you or anyone on your side.
Meanwhile, you are presenting no reasoning yourself, so how do you expect to convince me, or anyone who is on my side?

If you don't pay nurses enough or make their jobs suck, no one will want to be
a nurse anymore. Unions are just a way for employees to organize themselves,
so they can demand respect from their employer. Why do you hate that so much?

Why do you always fight for the powerful to exploit the powerless?
Don't you think that the little guy has been exploited enough already?

And Trump sat there on pleaded the 5th hundreds of times.
He had NO defense against any of it. He only obstructed and delayed.
Unlike you, I followed those court cases in detail.
You just spout your biased opinion.

You are commenting on what I provided for the sexual abuse and fraud cases. I was not talking about the election interference case or his classified documents case.

The evidence pieces related to the election interference conspiracy are:
Audio/Recordings: Trump–Raffensperger recorded call
Official Documents: Draft Clark letter; Eastman memos; fake elector certificates
Emails/Text Logs: Internal campaign coordination messages
Court Records: Indictments, plea transcripts
Testimony: Raffensperger & other officials before investigators
Video Footage: Alternate electors meeting publicly
Emails/communications: Discussions of plans to block/count electoral votes and non-public strategies
Official filings by Jan 6 committee: Detailed evidence summaries and assertions that Trump’s actions obstructed certification
Depositions & official records: Testimony that Trump was informed the fraud claims were false yet repeated them
Pence’s contemporaneous notes: Direct account of pressure on Pence to overrule electoral certification

The evidence pieces related to the classified documents case are:
Physical Documents: Classified records seized; inventories; photos
Recordings: Trump audio discussing classified items
Witness/Testimony: Grand jury testimony; staff statements
Lawyer Notes/Transcripts: Corcoran production ordered by appeals court
Court Filings & Discovery: Indictment, discovery sets, warrant affidavit
Video Footage: Mar-a-Lago camera recordings
Indictment narrative: Detailed account of statements and actions pushing for deletion of security footage
Sworn charging documents: Formal judicial accusations that Trump and aides sought to destroy evidence
Statements in the indictment: Quoted language from aides (“the boss wants … deleted”)
Subpoena timing: Shows deletion attempt occurred after legal demand for footage
Successful preservation of footage: Demonstrates the attempted deletion is independent from the fact the footage still exists

Where these cases stand out is quality and type, not just quantity:
1. Direct evidence of conduct
2. Evidence of knowledge and intent (the hardest element)
3. Multiple independent evidence streams

Are you comparing your government under Democrats with Iran?

You do not refuse to comment, you are commenting A LOT, you are just failing to refute anything I am saying.

Here is an idea: SHOW WHERE I AM WRONG!

That's 31.9 gallon, which is 120.7 liters. That's about 4x of when I fill up.
Do you really need a goddamn oil tanker to drive everywhere?
Why don't you get a small, fuel economical car, like a Toyota, Hyundai
or Suzuki, for rides that you don't need to carry lots of stuff?

How farsighted of me, to pretend to be a Dutch guy, so I somehow have a better standing in discussions about American politics, EIGHT YEARS before I ever posted anything political. Strange how all the other right-wingers here have argued many times that a foreigner like me doesn't know anything about the US. Off course, then they show that they in fact know less about for example their own Constitution, than I do, just like you. Maybe you think I'm an immigrant who just passed the U.S. naturalization civics test, because I know it so much better than you do.

You are quite hateful towards the Sudanese refugees.
I think you're a racist. At the very least, it's not very empathetic.

Let us also note that you had no counterargument to my argument against your claim that tariffs have been lopsided for years.

It's not 'the dope heads', it's the employees of companies like Walmart and McDonald's. You are literally funding the profits of these huge companies, to allow them to underpay their employees so much, that they would otherwise suffer food insecurity.

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

YOU are a conservative and YOU think that all Muslims are
the same. YOU argue that Zohran Mamdani is a terrorist threat, because he is a Muslim, and that idea is prevalent under the supporters of Trump. I do not claim that all conservatives think that, but I have not seen any of them disagree with you.

I am saying that Zohran Mamdani cares more about the working class, than any Republican ever has. All Republicans since Reagan have in general stolen from the working class, to give it
to the owner class. Zohran Mamdani only cares to reverse some of that. Unless some conservative/Republican agrees with that,
my claim is accurate.

Your idea of caring about the working class, is caring that they
are working as hard for as little as possible, to maximally enrich their employers.

Here’s a clear assessment of the “Average IQ by Country 2026” data you mentioned (from WorldPopulationReview) and whether it’s scientifically valid, trustworthy, or meaningful for comparing national intelligence.

🔍 1. What This “Average IQ by Country” Data Actually Is

The WorldPopulationReview page you linked aggregates IQ estimates from various sources — especially the International IQ Test online platform and older datasets like those by Richard Lynn & David Becker — and presents them as “average IQ by country.”

However, it’s not original scientific research. It doesn’t collect truly representative, systematic data across whole national populations. Instead, it:

Uses voluntary online tests taken by internet users (self-selected samples).

Compiles and mixes data from multiple sources (some decades old) that use different methods and test types.

Often includes small sample sizes for many countries.

So the WorldPopulationReview figures are estimates or derived rankings, not rigorous scientific measurements of national intelligence.

📉 2. Problems With This Kind of Ranking
❌ Non-representative samples

Online platforms only include people who choose to take an internet IQ test. That group is typically:

More educated,

More urban,

More digitally literate,

… than the overall population. This skews results systematically.

❌ Varied test types & methodologies

Different IQ tests measure different skills (verbal, nonverbal reasoning, memory, etc.). Aggregating heterogeneous data without consistent norms makes comparisons unreliable.

❌ Sample size issues

Some low-population or low-internet-access countries might only have very few test-takers, invalidating the idea of an “average IQ.”

❌ Questionable historical sources

Datasets like the one by Lynn & Becker have been widely criticized by academic researchers for using unrepresentative data and for biases in how they estimate national IQs.

➡️ A recent critique argues that “national IQ” datasets do not provide accurate, unbiased, or comparable measures of cognitive ability worldwide due to methodological flaws like inconsistent sampling and test diversity.
🧠 3. What the Scientific Community Actually Says About Cross-Country IQ Comparisons
✅ IQ tests do measure certain cognitive skills

IQ tests can be useful in psychology to assess reasoning or problem-solving within well-standardized contexts.

⚠️ But conclusions about national differences are controversial

There is no scientific consensus that average IQ differences between countries accurately reflect innate intelligence differences. Environmental, social, and cultural factors play huge roles. For instance:

Education quality

Nutrition and health

Literacy

Socioeconomic status

Test familiarity

… all influence test performance and are not evenly distributed between countries.

Environment vs. innate differences

The mainstream view in intelligence research today emphasizes that environmental factors, not genetics, explain most group-level differences in IQ scores. Claims that genetic differences account for national IQ disparities are not supported by credible scientific evidence.

🧩 4. Other Explanations for Score Variations (Aside from “Smarter Countries”)

Here are important reasons why average IQ scores might differ — none imply one nationality is inherently more intelligent:

📊 Educational access and quality

Better schooling systems and early childhood education boost test-taking performance.

🍽 Nutrition and health

Early nutrition affects brain development; better diets often correlate with higher cognitive test performance.

📚 Literacy and test exposure

People familiar with testing formats and abstract reasoning tasks do better on IQ tests.

🌍 Cultural familiarity with test content

Even “culture-fair” tests can still favor certain ways of thinking or problem-solving.

🧪 Sampling bias

If only a subset of people in a country participates (e.g., mostly well-off, urban, educated), the “average” is skewed.

🧠 5. Should You Trust This Source?

WorldPopulationReview is not a peer-reviewed scientific source for IQ research. It’s a publicly accessible statistics site that compiles existing estimates without rigorous methodology.

It doesn’t ensure representative sampling,

It mixes diverse data sources, and

It does not conform to the standards you’d expect from academic research in psychology or psychometrics.

Therefore, the data can be interesting for informal comparisons but should be treated with strong caution — particularly when drawing conclusions about national intelligence.

📌 Bottom Line

✅ IQ testing can measure some cognitive skills.
⚠️ But country-level averages based on online, non-random samples are not scientifically robust.
❌ These rankings do not prove that some populations are inherently more intelligent than others.
📌 Factors like education, health, environment, and test-taking bias are huge contributors.

👉 In short: no — the “Average IQ by Country” list is not a scientifically valid or reliable measure of national intelligence.

🧾 What the Story Is Really About
1. The Core Report

Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, has said Ford dealerships in the U.S. have about 5,000 open mechanic/technician jobs that can pay up to roughly $120,000 per year.

Farley and some articles frame this as a sign of a broader workforce issue in America — especially in skilled trades like mechanics, electricians, plumbers, manufacturing, and emergency services.

The headline you’re seeing — “I’m offering $120,000 jobs but nobody wants them” — seems to be an Internet exaggeration or social-media meme of that underlying claim.

💬 Public and Media Reactions
A. Business & Economic Coverage

Fortune and other business outlets note the shortage is not about laziness but about skills and training: auto technician jobs require years of apprenticeship/training before many workers hit the six-figure level.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the six-figure pay is not typical for people starting out; many techs start much lower and only reach high pay after years of experience and working conditions that are physically demanding.

B. Worker and Public Commentary

Many people online push back against the simplistic headline and offer alternative explanations:

Pay isn’t really “$120 k” right away: comments and threads point out that the phrase “up to $120k” can be misleading — that figure is often top end after many years on the job, not starting pay.

Training and tools cost time and money: many skilled trades require upfront investment in education, certification, and tools, which adds barriers.

Work Conditions Matter: some workers note that physically demanding jobs with long hours and limited flexibility are less attractive even with high pay.

Online critics also argue that employers sometimes inflate pay numbers for headlines or list jobs they’re not actively hiring for yet, contributing to confusion.

📊 Why These Jobs Are Hard to Fill (Beyond the Headline)

Experts and labor analysts point to several real reasons beyond “no one wants to work”:

1. Skills and Qualification Gaps

A lot of jobs that pay well require specialized skills, certifications, or years of experience — and there simply aren’t enough trained workers currently. Labour market research shows that mismatches between job requirements and worker skills are a major challenge today.

2. Training Time

Becoming proficient as a mechanic or skilled technician often takes multiple years of training or apprenticeships, and that delay means many people don’t enter the field immediately.

3. Job Conditions and Expectations

Even if compensation is good in the long run, the day-to-day reality — physically demanding work, safety risks, less flexible hours, and uncertain overtime — can deter applicants.

4. Labor Market Dynamics

In some sectors and roles, there are simply fewer open positions overall, or employers are very picky about qualifications, which can make openings linger even when workers exist. Research on hiring finds employers sometimes list broader skill “wish lists” that discourage applicants.

5. Broader Trends

Some data shows job openings overall have declined in late 2025, and hiring rates are sluggish even as claims of worker shortages persist — indicating structural complexity in the market.

📌 So Why Do People Say “Nobody Wants These Jobs”?

That interpretation tends to come from simplistic media memes or social posts, not detailed economic analysis. On deeper inspection:

✔ It’s not that Americans categorically refuse to do these jobs —
❌ It’s that the jobs may require skills many workers don’t yet have, or pay structures that aren’t transparent or worth it for people just starting.
✔ Many workers are interested in well-paid, sustainable careers, but they also value flexibility, training investment, and workplace conditions — and if those aren’t aligned, even high nominal salaries aren’t enough.

🧠 Conclusion

The viral story you linked is essentially a viral spin on a real labor market issue — namely, a shortage of trained workers in certain industries, including high-paying mechanic jobs. But the idea that “people don’t want to work these $120 k jobs” is too simple and misleading. The real challenges include:

The need for skills and training pipelines

Physical demands of jobs

Misleading salary framing (“up to $120k” vs starting pay)

Broader hiring and labor market mismatches

In short, it’s not that “no one wants them.” It’s that there aren’t enough traders with the right training, the pay ladder is long and opaque, and labor market dynamics are complex — a more nuanced picture than the meme-style headline suggests.

Why Humans Cannot Be Divided into Biological Races

For centuries, people have tried to divide humanity into a small number of “races”—sometimes three, sometimes five, sometimes dozens. These classifications were often presented as scientific facts. Modern biology, genetics, and anthropology, however, show that there are no biologically distinct human races. All attempts to divide humans into races are arbitrary, historically contingent, and unsupported by genetic evidence.

1. Where the Idea of Human Races Came From
The concept of race emerged primarily in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries, long before genetics existed. Naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified humans much as they classified plants and animals, relying on visible traits like skin color, hair texture, or skull shape.
Crucially:
- Different scholars proposed different numbers of races (3, 4, 5, 6, or more).
- The boundaries between races were never agreed upon.
- These systems often reflected colonial, political, and social ideologies, not biological discoveries.
If race were a natural biological division, scientists would have converged on a stable, consistent classification. They never did.

2. What Genetics Reveals About Human Variation
Modern genetics allows us to directly measure human biological diversity. Its findings are decisive:
- All humans share about 99.9% of their DNA.
- Of the small fraction that varies, most variation occurs within local populations, not between so-called races.
- Roughly 85–90% of genetic variation is found within any given population, and only a small fraction distinguishes populations from different continents.
This means that two people from the same “race” can be more genetically different from each other than either is from someone classified as belonging to a different race.

3. Human Differences Are Gradual, Not Categorical
Biological races, when they exist in other species, are defined by clear genetic boundaries. Humans do not show this pattern.
Instead:
- Human traits vary gradually across geography, forming what biologists call clines.
- Skin color, for example, changes slowly from the equator toward the poles, correlating with ultraviolet radiation—not with racial categories.
- There is no point where one “race” ends and another begins.
Any line drawn between races is therefore a human decision, not a biological fact.

4. The Arbitrary Nature of Race Classifications
The history of race science exposes its arbitrariness:
- Some systems grouped Indigenous Australians with Africans; others with Asians.
- People from North Africa have been classified as Black, White, or Middle Eastern depending on time and place.
- In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were once considered non-White; today they are considered White.
A classification system that changes with politics, geography, and culture cannot be a biological one.

5. Ancestry Is Real; Race Is Not
Rejecting biological race does not mean denying human diversity.
- Ancestry refers to genealogical and geographic history and can be studied scientifically.
- Population genetics can identify patterns related to migration, isolation, and adaptation.
- These patterns do not form discrete racial boxes.
Race, by contrast, simplifies continuous variation into rigid categories and assigns social meaning to them.

6. Why the Myth of Biological Race Persists
The idea of race persists because it is socially powerful, not scientifically accurate. It has been used to:
- Justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation
- Naturalize inequality by portraying it as biological
- Provide simple explanations for complex social differences
Science does not support these uses.

7. Scientific Consensus
Today, there is broad agreement among:
- Geneticists
- Anthropologists
- Evolutionary biologists
- Medical researchers
Humans form a single, interbreeding species with no biological races. Race is a social classification imposed on biological variation, not a natural division within it.

Conclusion
All attempts to divide humanity into three races, five races, or any other number fail for the same reason: human biological diversity does not come in discrete units. The boundaries are invented, the numbers are arbitrary, and the categories change over time.

What unites humanity is far more fundamental than what superficially distinguishes us. From a biological perspective, race is not a fact of nature—it is a story societies tell.

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
only registered users can see external links

"I Hate Donald Trump?"
only registered users can see external links

Wow, how much nonsense can you put in one comment?
Why would liberals be 'forced to vote', and how?

"The appointed one for the liberals."? Because Biden appointed her? Yes, OK,
you have a point there. However, she was the VP, so it was logical that she would follow Biden, because there was no time left to hold primaries.
It was very much like enacting the 25th Amendment on Biden, in which case
the Vice President will take over as Acting President.
Maybe you should think about it, because Trump will destroy your party.

Socialists like me want to maximize democracy, lots of publicly funded services and utilities, to maximize PEOPLE power. You clearly don't understand it, when you call that "government power". Meanwhile, you support Trump as the ABSOLUTE power. What power would you NOT allow him to have? That is a dictator. A dictator is the absolute extreme of "government power", who takes away ALL the power from the people. There are no "big governments" in Europe that take away more freedom from its people than Trump is threatening to do.

"You would love to be in the inner circle" I would like to have some more impact, but that takes much more energy and effort than I'm willing to put up. So, no.

Your dictator accusation is pure projection. Look how Trump is acting in your government. He wants everything to go his way, no matter how half-assed his ideas are. No one predicted what he was going to do. It could be the opposite
of everything he ever said, but you'll defend it anyway.
That's because you don't have ANY ideas about how a responsible administration should act, or what they need to do to solve problems.

Socialist politicians are representatives. They do exactly what the party has agreed upon, which is negotiated in a detailed program, that is based on the parties manifesto. We transparently advertise that program. After the election, everything that we initiate and support can be traced back to that program.

Where is the program of Trump, in which he promised to destroy all those agencies, replace much of the government with loyalists, go on the offensive against multiple countries, start another trade-war, send in the National Guard as an occupation force, cut ACA subsidies and not replace it with anything keeping healthcare affordable, terrorize the whole country with blood-thirsty thugs, and deport immigrants who are on a path to citizenship and never broke the law, and call half of American citizens 'the enemy within'?
It sound a lot like Project 2025, that he denied all responsibility for.

If our party would be able to act like a 'dictator', that would mean that a large majority of the voters had voted for us. Still, everything they would do would be 100% legal, because that's part of the goal of maximizing democracy too.

Put some actual arguments to your accusations for once. Provide some examples of that lib hypocrisy or provide some contradictory quotes of me, showing me to be a hypocrite. Anyone can join the effort, if tecsan fails.
I'm sure you need to straw-man me, to come even close.
(I hope you all understand that term now)

Sure, people like you have all the right to boycott that place.
However, there might be more people who like that place now.
And maybe they have now reason to boycott the Hilton.
Your movement is declining fast. Even the QAnon shaman now hates Trump.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) issued a report in September 2025 concluding that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide in the Gaza Strip by the legal definition under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The report says Israeli actions meet four of the five criteria for genocide and that there is evidence of genocidal intent.
The 5th is "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
They have no desire to transfer children, because they just kill them too.

A "John Doe" and a "Straw-man" is not the same thing.
A "John Doe" is some unknown person or personality.
A "Straw-man" is misrepresentation of someone’s position to make it easier to attack.

The Intent: To win an argument by deception.
The "straw-man" isn't a real person; it's a caricature.

When you are straw-manning someone, then you are not attacking the actual ideas of that person, but what you are pretending are his ideas.

Here is a common example involving a workplace project:

Colleague A (Actual proposal): "I think we should extend the testing phase of this software by one week. I’m worried we might miss some bugs if we rush to launch on Monday."

Colleague B (The straw-man): "So, your plan is to delay the entire launch indefinitely and tell our clients that we are incapable of meeting deadlines? We can't just stop working every time someone gets nervous."

"people break into my home and steal my money raping and murdering my women it comes down to a time where you have to say no"
PURE MAKE-BELIEF to justify actions that you cannot justify honestly.

"United States are a super power now." And that justifies it for you to act violently towards all those countries you are listing, including DENMARK.
At least some of those countries have been antagonistic towards the US, but DENMARK? The only thing you can accuse them of is not gifting you their Sovereign territory. And Cuba? You just didn't like their choice of self-government, when they threw the US out of their country, for treating them like a whore. Iran? You don't like it that they didn't like you fucking with the Middle East for ever for their oil. China? Just a country who got rich of producing stuff for your corporations, and who is not willing to serve you anymore. I sort of understand Colombia and Mexico, for all those drugs, but they didn't force it down your nose and veins. It's your own failures as a country that make your people have drugs problems. In my country, you can get drugs in a minute, but we have nowhere near your overdose and addiction problems. Your problems with Russia are simple; you didn't like their ideas and you didn't like another superpower rival. You forced everyone to pick your side or die. We all were your bitch for decades, and as soon as the bully needs to do his job and defend us from the other bully, you back down.

You show clearly that you don't have the slightest bit of empathy, and the ENTITLEMENT of the US you are expressing is profound.

You ARE wasting your time, because you cannot justify any of your claims.
Even when you prove yourself wrong, you are unable to learn.
You understand that you are not engaging in a honest debate, and you are here to gaslight, straw-man and use cheap tricks, to defend an ideology you believe in, and a leader that you adore for his performative dominance,
that you know are both completely indefensible. You cannot reconcile the principles you say you hold high with the ideology and leader you support. That's prevalent on your side of politics.

The late Charlie Kirk was well-known for using nothing but cheap tricks and editing his videos, to make others think he won the debate, while he only embarrassed himself every time. If someone needs cheep tricks to propagate their ideology, they know that their ideology is not defensible. That made him a grifter, because only the money made his career worthwhile. He must have hated himself and it looks like his wife didn't love him much either. She clearly shows she only liked his money and his audience, that she wants to continue to monetize. It's a hollow existence.

Likewise, only the result of your efforts here could make it worthwhile for you. Since you have not achieved anything, not even with your own side of politics, it has been a completely hollow activity for you.

That's different for me, because I don't need cheap tricks and I never defend anyone or anything that I consider not truthful or not worth defending.
My ideology is consistent, from my core principles, to the words I speak when I am out canvassing, and the representatives I canvas for.
I never have to pretend that my representatives are better human beings than how they present themselves, because they are all exemplary in character, behavior and competence. They are all not serving their self-interests, but exist solely to defend the core values of the party, its voters, and the people, only for as long as the members allow it.

I can support this ideology, without betraying myself and my dignity.
The effort is just, the means is just, so my time investment is justifiable.
You are required to lie and humiliate yourself for the evil of your cult leader.
It was a waste of time, before you typed one word.

And now you're resorting to completely transparent childishness.
I was waiting for that character to come out. You actually managed
to hide it away for a good while. I wonder if you'll be able to put him
away again or if he's now out of the closet permanently.

To return a compliment to phart; without claiming he is one, he's a much better STOIC than you are. I guess life experience, persevering despite adversity, has taught him that. You can learn Stoicism from books, but it takes discernment, epistemic integrity, and a willingness to change,.... qualities you clearly lack.

I said nothing of the sort. You just need to pretend that, to do a character assassination, because you cannot win the argument in a honest way.

Someone is providing that "work under the table". It's not magic.
If you abolish or cut back on all agencies responsible for monitoring employers, you leave a gaping hole for illegal immigrants to hide in.

Instead of agencies that would mostly bother employers, you now have
an intrusive armed invasion-force, who constantly needs to look in all those holes, bothering, beating up and killing American citizen.
And they are very fucking expensive too.

"Some person said something I think is crazy"
Is that what you are outraged over now?
But, when I criticize Trump, a person backed by the most power military in the world,
for threatening the sovereignty of multiple countries at the same time, that's TDS.

By the way, I looked it up. This is the complete quote: “Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”
She was OBVIOUSLY not talking about citizens owning their OWN homes, she was talking about private rich and wealthy people, who own multiple houses, that they rent out.

Her reactions to this post surfacing are:
“some of those things are certainly not how I would say things today, and are regretful.”
She emphasized that her focus in her current role is on addressing racial inequalities in housing and ensuring that everyone has a safe, affordable place to live, whether they rent or own. She also noted that “for many years, people have been locked out of the property market, that has produced systemic and racial inequalities in our system.”

The Director of the FBI made a video of him cutting off the heads of his political enemies. That was more recent too; 2022. That is far more deranged and he is in a position of far greater power. If it was the only thing, we could discard it as a joke, but he has a wild history of promoting “deep state” conspiracies, directly engaging with QAnon–linked messaging and hashtags, sympathy with the convicted criminals of the January 6 Capitol attack, labeling officials as Government Gangsters on an enemy list and threatening to “come after” journalists and perceived political enemies.

If a few posts from her are evidence that the followers of socialism are idiots,
than Kash Patel fully justifies me in calling all of your side DANGEROUS LUNATICS.

Straw-manning someone is a sign of weakness.

Hotels are considered private businesses but are treated as public accommodations
under civil rights law. That means they cannot discriminate against protected classes,
but political affiliation or occupation (like being an ICE agent) is not a protected class.

"The Supreme Court has consistently held that many constitutional protections apply to all persons within U.S. borders, regardless of their legal status." Like I said.

"Non-citizens are entitled to "due process of law" before they can be deprived of life, liberty, or property." Like I said.

"In the context of deportation, this generally includes the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to challenge evidence." Like I said.

" States cannot deny any person within their jurisdiction "equal protection of the laws."" Like I said.

"Fourth Amendment Protections: Immigrants are protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures." Generally, immigration agents must have a judicial warrant or probable cause to enter a home."
Like I said.

And your current administration is disrespecting those laws consistently.

"Most removal (deportation) proceedings are considered civil, not criminal." INSTEAD, they are treated like major violent criminals
and punished SEVERELY, without due process.

"Under certain federal statutes, individuals caught near the border who have been in the country for a very short time may be subject to rapid removal without a standard hearing,"
I have no problem with that at all.

"though asylum seekers must still be granted a process to present their claims."
Which is consistently violated by your current administration.

Do we understand each other now?

No, when they enter our country, they report to the first desk that they can find, to apply for asylum. There is no employer who offers them a job, so they cannot survive without turning themselves in. Unless they are just traveling through to the next country to apply for asylum, of course.

I'm not saying that none will ever commit a crime, but we have capable police. If they do commit a crime, it's mostly petty theft.
They will get caught, because they have not a lot of places to hide,
and then they have ruined their chances of getting their asylum,
and are sent back from whence they came.

The immigrants who pose the most problems are the LEGAL migrant workers, from within the EU, who get exploited and dumped, and then are homeless on the streets. That (again) is the result of right-wing policies.
The left has tried to fix that for decades now, but they get voted down by
the majority. It's extremely rare that an undocumented, illegal immigrant committed a violent crime. I found one case of murder in a tram (2018,
4 people), but he was already under investigation. Recently, we had a Ukrainian refugee going mental and stabbing five people. He was already documented and staying in the Delta Hotel in Amsterdam as shelter. He is in custody, and official legal proceedings/investigations were underway.
No official public details as of yet, confirming mental‑health issues or PTSD.
These things happen sometimes, but they are much less frequent than violence from our own citizens. I would like my country to spend more on immigration cervices, so we minimize those risks.

Still, we are living in a much safer country than you do, and that has nothing to do with immigration. We have very strict gun control and we take better care of our citizens (and guests) so we have much less desperation-driven crime than the US.

For a country with 48,000 gun deaths per year and around 45,000 excess annual preventable deaths, due to lack of healthcare access, I find you irrationally fearful for illegal immigrants. You're about as likely to get killed
by bees, wasps or hornets in your country, and much much more likely by another American citizen.

You must have an awful conscience to keep assuming that killers would come to your country to slaughter innocent people. It truly comes across
as disturbingly twisted.

Because you support a selfish man who has scammed everyone who ever had the misfortune to have to deal with him, because he was best friends with a man he knew to be a sexual predator, because he has treated women like objects to be used, discarded and kicked down, because he is horrible racist, because he has no class or decency, because he is a thief and a traitor, and because he turns the USA
into an even more evil empire.
When you are proud to support such a person, you cannot be a good person yourself.

Here's a fun idea, that I picked up from some YouTube comment,
for people who want to follow religious books literally:
A hundred years from now, scholars will have trouble differentiating the terms
“butt dial” and “booty call”. Can you only imagine what we have been missing
in translation for the last two thousand years?

"if someone looks like an illegal immigrant"? Now how does that work?
Do you give ICE a color sample chart?

Indeed, you cannot just assume someone is an illegal immigrant, with the only reason that they "look" like an illegal immigrant, because there is no specific appearance to illegal immigrants. That's when you start bullying American citizens that you think look like illegal immigrants. That's called discrimination. It all shows that you don't understand the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.
It's even irrelevant if those amendments would only protect citizens, because ICE is bullying American CITIZENS for "LOOKING LIKE" illegal immigrants.

When you have ICE posting at immigration offices, they are not picking up illegal immigrants, they are picking up immigrants in the process towards citizenship.

When Trump started with this, he just sent ICE to farms, orchards, meat-packing plants, hotels, and restaurants. It's completely legitimate to ask the employer to show evidence that all their employees are in the books, and to pick up everyone who isn't, because that IS a probable cause or reasonable suspicion that those are illegals. It is legitimate to deport those people, if a simple check clearly shows them to be illegal, but they shouldn't let the employer get off without even a warning. They won't learn anything and just keep doing it, if there is no risk to themselves. I think we can agree on all of this. Your side keeps thinking that lefties are pro-immigration, we are not. Respect the law, and you get no grief from me. The only people who like illegal immigration are employers who want to exploit them. The idea that Democrats want them as voters is nonsense, because many immigrants
are conservatives and end up voting for Republicans.

Where we don't agree is the cruelty, treating all immigrants like criminals, using tattoos as justification for calling them criminals, and then sending them to a concentration camp in a bug-infested swamp, or a dictatorship.
And denying that is evil too.

What the fuck is up with you referencing Iran all the time?
Do you think you can send some helicopters to go pick up the ayatollah?
Try it, and you will be spending 20 trillion on the next war.
That's not "America first", that's sending your kids to die
for a stupid distraction, from the truth that Trump, his billionaire friends
and many Republican politicians are sick perverts on the member list
of Epstein's island.

OMG, the OG Jew haters are the American right.
You just love Netanyahu's genocide.

Yes, Trump definitely changed things... FOREVER. He unleashed the very 'evil empire' so many had long feared the US was becoming.

Sure, Hunter kept a whole cartel flourishing on his own,
but no liberal ever considered voting for him, while your side
sold T-shirts advertising Don Jr. as the next president:
only registered users can see external links
Nepotism is very much a right-wing phenomenon.

Well, it might be real, because here is some of the poetry:

Ode to Winning So Much It Hurts

I love him loud.
I love him best.
He says he’s rich, so he must be blessed.

He talks about himself for hours on end,
That’s leadership, friend, not narcissism.
If he forgets what he said last week,
That’s strategy, not a mind gone weak.

They say he hates the working folk,
But he sells us hats, so that’s a joke.
Sure, they’re cheap, and cost us rent,
But that’s not greed, that’s commitment.

I bought the book with his holy name,
Printed overseas, but it’s not the same
As corruption, no, it’s faith you see,
Capitalism wrapped in divinity.

The Constitution? Optional text.
Rules are for losers, he knows what’s next.
When he breaks them all, it shows his might,
Real kings don’t read, they feel what’s right.

They cry about soldiers, medals, the dead,
But he loves them best when they’re useful, not red.
If they fall for oil or profit or pride,
That’s freedom’s price,don’t ask who decides.

He flirts with danger, threatens the globe,
Not because he’s scared, but bold, so bold.
If secrets leak and questions grow,
Just shout at the world,that’s strength, you know.

They whisper of friends he shouldn’t have had,
Of parties and tastes that look real bad.
But powerful men get misunderstood,
If it was wrong, he meant it good.

So let them talk, let truth offend,
I’ll love him louder till the very end.
Because if he’s guilty, corrupt, or cruel,
Then I’ll just say: that’s how you rule.

I'm sure that you can find some propaganda sources that are trying to do revisionist history, you didn't make this up yourself, but it is a lie, that only makes sense for people with an extreme bias.

There is no mention of politics being called 'left' or 'right' from before the French revolution, while the those bible text are much much older.

Funny that you are not referring to what Grok says this time, because that confirms my claim and not yours.

Here are some official sources:

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

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

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

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

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

Your economic strength is dependent on outsourcing production and selling products and services to the rest of the world. You're people are too impoverished to keep your economy running on their own. You have allowed them to be exploited to a point that they need to borrow money for food. That's an economy on the edge of collapse.

America has recovered when it had governments filled with qualified people.
Trump has fired al those qualified people and replaced them with loyal idiots.
Your country doesn't have any recovery strength left, because of that.
Europe is helping the US to stay solvent, because we fear what happens if it collapses. However, if we need to defend ourselves by causing your collapse,
that would be easy. It would hurt us too, but not as much as you.

Meanwhile, the EU is working hard to make us more independent,
so it won't hurt as much, when we need to defend ourselves.
We would never stand a chance against your military, I know that,
but the US is controlled by your billionaires, who are not loyal to your ideology,
but only care about their bottom line. They will take out your regime, when it
no longer serves their interests.

Are you too stupid to even understand your mistake or too dishonest to admit it?

"Constitutional amemdments only apply to American citizens" FALSE!

Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime… nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Key word: "person", NOT "citizen".


Fourteenth Amendment — Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Clearly first defining the difference between a "person" and a "citizen"
and then clearly assigning the right to "any person".

You're a gas-lighter, which is the strategy of a coward.

You have no morality, besides worshiping Trump.

If every human has the the same value, you wouldn't justify people being kidnapped and transported out of the country to a horrible prison in a horrible dictatorship, without JUSTICE proving that they did anything wrong.

Sure drop out of the UN and NATO, and the whole of Europe abandons the dollar,
and bans trade with the US. Your massive debt will bankrupt you within a year.
We have 550 million people and about your GDP. We can obliterate you economically.
I'm sure that China will love to take over the alliance.

We were talking about "villagers who don't have kids". Where do you think they'll
end up, when they cannot take care of themselves anymore?
Those nursing homes need caregivers. That's not a career often chosen by rich kids.

Taking care of your parents is what poor countries do.
Countries with social benefits have professionals to do that,
keeping the old folks as independent as possible.
Parents don't like to be washed by their children.
Damn, your country is a third-world shit-hole.

If Don Jr. stops snorting cocaine, they'll need to cut that export in half.

Still no arguments for anything you're saying, just new bullshit.

That's a fucking lie. That's not what the terms are coming from.