Why is no one talking about another questionable thing happening in American politics, related to your Senator Mitch McConnell? This is now world news, because they are hiding the truth and obviously lying about what happened and his condition since then.

McConnell says he was "briefly unconscious" had pneumonia in health update
only registered users can see external links

Watching the whole Mitch McConnell situation from over here in the Netherlands, and honestly, we are completely baffled by how badly his team botched the communication on this. Holding back information for nearly a month was just flat-out stupid crisis management.

Nobody is buying the official press release claiming he was just "briefly unconscious" after a simple fall. That completely contradicts the leaked EMS audio where dispatchers literally mentioned a potential cardiac arrest and emergency CPR. When you hide basic facts,
you create a massive information vacuum, and that's a dangerous paradox: by trying to suppress media noise, his office actually fueled the exact conspiracy theories they wanted to avoid. (https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/2076466612333625677)

This isn't just "liberals" making noise. Many prominent right-wing influencers have been openly speculating for weeks whether he was secretly dead or in a permanent coma, demanding to know why leadership was hiding his true condition.

Over here, Dutch news outlets (like the national broadcaster NOS and major newspapers like NRC and de Volkskrant) have been covering this with sheer amazement. Our political analysts find it wild how a top-tier Washington PR team didn't realize that in 2026, total silence guarantees the internet will just fill the gaps with AI deepfakes and rumors.
To us, treating an 84-year-old senator's major health crisis like a state secret just erodes public trust even further.

The root of the problem is how our legal systems differ. In the U.S., you don’t have temporary replacements for Congress. It’s all-or-nothing. With a razor-thin Senate majority, if McConnell steps aside or admits he is incapacitated, his party can't hold the party line, risking their ability to pass laws or even meet a quorum. The American system practically forces politicians to hide their illnesses to protect their party's power.

In the Netherlands, our election laws actually remove that political risk. Since 2006, we have a system that allows for a strict 16-week temporary replacement, if a Member of Parliament gets seriously ill. The next person on the party's election list steps in, so the party loses zero voting power. If someone is just out for a brief month, their seat stays empty, but the party will instantly release a brief statement like "Member of Parliament X is recovering from surgery for the next four weeks." End of story. Our system allows politicians to be transparent because honesty won't cost the party a crucial vote, whereas the U.S. system practically rewards secrecy and forces PR teams to run these absurd "Proof of Life" spins.

The words socialism and communism are often misunderstood. Many people use them to describe the authoritarian governments of the twentieth century. Those governments are an important part of history, but they are NOT what the words originally mean.

Socialism comes from the Latin word socius, meaning "companion" or "associate.".
The basic idea is that the economy should benefit everyone, not mainly rich owners or shareholders. This usually means that important businesses and services should be owned or controlled by the people who work in them, the people who use them, or the public as a whole.

Communism comes from the Latin word communis, meaning "common" or "shared." The idea is that things like land, factories, and machines should belong to everyone together, instead of being owned by private people or companies. In Marxist theory, this would eventually lead to a society without social classes or a government.

Countries such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China called themselves communist, but whether they actually achieved the goals of communism is still debated. Calling yourself something does not automatically make you that thing. A country can call itself communist without matching the original idea, just as a country can call itself democratic without actually being a democracy.

The meaning of words can change over time. However, in political science, words like socialism and communism still have clear definitions. Whether you agree with these ideas or not, it is important to know the difference between what an idea MEANS and what has been done by people who CLAIMED to follow it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalism comes from the word capital, which comes from the Latin capitale, meaning wealth or property. In economics, capital means resources that can be used to produce goods and services, such as land, factories, machines, businesses, and financial assets.

The basic idea of capitalism is that productive resources are privately owned. This means that individuals, groups, or companies can own and control the things used to produce goods and services. Because ownership gives decision-making power, the owners of capital have the authority to decide how those resources are used and have the right to benefit from their use.

Throughout history, capitalism has taken many different forms. Some capitalist societies have produced high levels of innovation, economic growth, and prosperity. Others have been associated with serious problems, including exploitation of workers, extreme inequality, monopolies, and the concentration of economic and political power.

During the Industrial Revolution, many workers experienced dangerous working conditions, very low wages, long working hours, and child labour. During the Gilded Age in the United States, large companies and wealthy industrialists gained enormous economic influence, creating concerns about monopolies and unequal political power. Colonial economic systems also often combined private ownership and profit-making with the exploitation of people and resources.

These examples are part of the history of capitalism, just as authoritarian governments are part of the history of movements that called themselves socialist or communist. However, historical examples do not by themselves define the entire concept. They show the different ways a system can develop depending on the institutions, rules, and power structures surrounding it.

Like socialism and communism, capitalism is a broad family of ideas with different interpretations. Some forms place more emphasis on individual freedom, private ownership, and fewer restrictions on economic activity. Other forms support stronger rules and public institutions to influence how the economy works.

The meaning of the word does NOT depend on whether a particular capitalist society is successful, fair, unequal, democratic, or dominated by large corporations. Those are questions about how capitalism is organized and what results from it. The basic definition remains the same: capitalism is a system based on private ownership of productive resources.

Prevent the machine from going forward towards the "end goal?"
The 'end goal' is the desired result. Who said that it should be prevented?
The wheel chock is people's desire to be selfish and power hungry.

You keep thinking that 'communism' is authoritarian. Can't you read?
A "classless, stateless society, based on common ownership".
That's the complete ABSENCE of authority.

"To believe that the process would stop suddenly for the first time in world history"
THE PROCESS NEVER EVER REACHED ANYTHING NEAR IT!!!!
No country has ever even achieved the "transition stage".

People are SELFISH. CAPITALISM needs wheel chocks to prevent the machine
from progressing to OLIGARCHY, because the greed and lust for power of the
wealthy elites can never be satisfied. DO YOU HAVE EYES?!?
What are YOU doing to stop CAPITALISM declining to OLIGARCHY?

Society will NEVER progress from socialism to capitalism automatically,
because it REQUIRES THE WILLINGNESS TO SHARE!

Marx didn't propose socialism as the 'ideal stage', but communism.
I am a socialist; for ME PERSONALLY it IS the 'ideal stage'.
I think that humans are too selfish to accept communism, and that a state
with some form of government is practically useful.

You keep showing that you don't understand; "once everyone is equal" that IS communism, as Marx intended it, as the 'end goal'. In socialism, not everyone and everything is equal YET. It's all a lot MORE equal than everywhere currently, but
there are still people with talent and luck accumulating more wealth than others.
It's just laying a base of equal opportunity for everyone.

We WON'T get there trusting politicians, this takes a broad consensus of people desiring equality enough, to let go of their greed and lust for power, and provide
equal opportunity and share ownership a lot more. It means that the powerful elite gives up a lot of their power and wealth. Nothing about this will be easy or progress automatically. PROGRESS ITSELF NEVER HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY.

"Nine Million Bicycles" - Katie Melua
only registered users can see external links

There are nine million bicycles in Beijing
That's a fact
It's a thing we can't deny
Like the fact that I will love you 'til I die

We are 12 billion light years from the edge
That's a guess
No one can ever say it's true
But I know that I will always be with you

I'm warmed by the fire of your love every day
So don't call me a liar, just believe everything that I say
There are six billion people in the world, more or less
And it makes me feel quite small
But you're the one I love the most of all

We're high on the wire with the world in our sight
And I'll never tire of the love that you give me every night

There are nine million bicycles in Beijing
That's a fact
It's a thing we can't deny
Like the fact that I will love you 'til I die
And there are nine million bicycles in Beijing
And you know that I will love you 'til I die

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Scientifically Accurate Lyrics:

The prominent scientist and author, Simon Singh, wrote a hilariously pedantic article in The Guardian. He complained that Melua’s lyrics showed a "deep ignorance of cosmology". He was specifically offended by the lines: "We are 12 billion light-years from the edge / That's a guess / No one can ever say it's true"

Singh pointed out that calling it a "guess" insulted generations of hard-working astronomers. First of all, the observable universe was actually about 13.7 billion years old. Second of all, scientists hadn't just guessed it, they had precisely calculated it! Instead of getting defensive, Katie Melua proved she had a fantastic sense of humor. She invited Singh onto BBC Radio 4 and performed a live, completely "fixed," and hilariously unromantic version of the song:

We are 13.7 billion light-years from the edge of the observable universe
That's a good estimate with well-defined error bars
And with the available data,
I predict that I will always be with you.

The new lyrics completely ruined the rhythm and rhyme of the song, but the scientific community was absolutely thrilled. Singh later praised her for being such a good sport. Naturally, Melua still sings the scientifically incorrect version at her concerts today, because "13.7 billion light-years with well-defined error bars" is a bit of a mood-killer
on date night.

"even my oldest dictionary says socialism is the first step in communism"
And that is TRUE, in the Marxist definitions of both terms, but not how YOU define them.

I have been trying to get you to understand this for YEARS NOW.


===== The Marxist Ideal (The Blueprint):

Karl Marx’s entire philosophy was about decentralization. Marx saw capitalism as a system where a tiny elite at the top (the CEOs/Oligarchs) held all the economic and political power over the working class.

- Socialism was the transition phase: the workers taking over the factories and governing democratically from the bottom up.

- Communism was the ultimate end goal: a society where the central state completely vanishes because power and wealth are so thoroughly distributed among local communities that a government bureaucracy isn't even needed anymore. It is the absolute absence of a ruling class.

"younger people want to try to change the definition of words"
YOU are changing the definitions, based on the lies of dictators.


===== The Dictator's Marketing Campaign vs. The Reality

When most people in the West think of "communism," they are actually looking at the brutal realities of regimes led by dictators like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Nicolás Maduro. However, there is a massive gulf between what these rulers did and what the actual definition of the ideology means.

These dictators essentially ran a massive political bait-and-switch. They used Karl Marx’s popular, populist slogans, promising equality, power to the working class, and an end to oppression, to gain the trust of the masses and overthrow the existing governments. But once they secured control, they did the exact opposite of what Marxist theory dictates.

Instead of gradually dismantling the power of the state and distributing wealth and decision-making power down to local communities, these regimes hyper-centralized the state. They built massive, top-down authoritarian systems where a tiny, unelected political and military elite held 100% of the political power and controlled 100% of the economic resources. They didn't eliminate the billionaire ruling class; they simply replaced them, concentrating the nation's wealth into their own private pockets while the working class starved.

In short: they adopted the vocabulary of communism as a marketing shield to mask what was, in reality, a standard, corrupt oligarchy. Believing these regimes were actually communist just because they used the label is the equivalent of believing North Korea
is a democracy, just because its official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


===== The Dictator's Bait-and-Switch (and how it applies to the US)

Dictators like Stalin or Maduro ran a massive political fraud. They used Karl Marx’s slogans (equality, power to the workers) to overthrow the system. But instead of giving power to the people, they hyper-centralized the state. They built a corrupt oligarchy, concentrating 100% of the wealth and power into their own private pockets.
Believing they were actually communist, just because of their marketing, is like believing North Korea is a democracy because it’s in their official name.

This exact same bait-and-switch can happen in the US. If a populist leader dismantles democratic checks and balances and merges government power with ultra-rich billionaires, the free market dies.

The mechanism is just inverted, but the result is identical:
• In Venezuela, a political elite seized the economy to enrich themselves.
• In an authoritarian US, a corporate billionaire elite captures the government to control the laws and wealth for themselves.

Both roads lead to the exact same destination: a hyper-centralized ruling class with 100% of the power, leaving the working class with zero influence. Authoritarian elites always rob the working class the exact same way, regardless of whether they wave a communist red flag or an American one.

This is something you can simply ask Google AI.
I know you don't think it's right-wing enough, but if it's not true,
then you could argue against it:

The "Shithole" Countries Debate: Western Intervention vs. Internal Failure:

The economic and political situation in developing countries is the result of a complex interplay between historical external interventions and internal political factors. No single region has been shaped exclusively by one factor; everywhere, both colonial legacies and modern domestic mismanagement
play a role.

Latin America (South and Central America)
In this region, the historical and geopolitical impact of the West (specifically the United States) is highly documented, though internal corruption and populism play an equally large role in current instability.
• Western impact: During the Cold War, the US actively destabilized leftist governments through the doctrine of regime change. Concrete examples include the CIA-backed coup in Guatemala (1954) in favor of the United Fruit Company, and the support for the military dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile (1973). Economic embargoes have heavily suffocated local economies. Most notably, while Venezuela already faced internal economic challenges, aggressive U.S. sanctions targeting its oil sector—the country's largest natural resource and economic backbone—crippled its ability to export and severely accelerated its economic collapse. Before these sweeping sanctions hit, the country was performing significantly better economically.
• Internal factors: Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have run themselves deep into trouble through decades of macroeconomic mismanagement, hyperinflation, and corruption under populist leaders (such as Chavism), independent of external pressure. In countries like Colombia and Mexico,
drug cartels and weak rule of law play a decisive internal role.

Africa (Sub-Sahara)
Africa struggles with the deepest colonial scars in the world, but also with persistent post-colonial internal power struggles.
• Western impact: The artificial borders drawn by European powers during the Berlin Conference of 1884 forced rival ethnic groups into a single country, laying the foundation for later civil wars (such as in Nigeria and Rwanda). The brutal exploitation of resources (such as in the Congo under the Belgian King Leopold II) left countries behind without infrastructure or an educated elite. During the Cold War, the West supported dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire/Congo) because they were anti-communist.
• Internal factors: Since independence (mostly around 1960), many African countries have dealt with 'kleptocracies'—regimes where leaders plunder the state treasury for self-enrichment. Zimbabwe collapsed economically under Robert Mugabe due to disastrous land reform policies and hyperinflation. Countries like Somalia and South Sudan suffer from internal tribal struggles and the inability to establish a functioning central government.

The Middle East
This is a region where direct Western military interventions and border adjustments have enormously amplified existing religious and ethnic fault lines.
• Western impact: After the First World War, Great Britain and France divided the region via the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) without taking Sunni, Shia, or Kurdish territories into account. In Iran (1953), the US and the UK deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh after he nationalized the oil, leading to the autocratic Shah and ultimately the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The 2003 Iraq War by a US-led coalition completely destabilized the region and created the vacuum in which ISIS could emerge.
• Internal factors: The deep, centuries-old religious struggle between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) drives numerous proxy wars (such as in Yemen). Additionally, many regimes, such as the Assad regime in Syria, choose brutal repression of their own population to stay in power, leading to the total destruction of the country.

Asia (South and Southeast Asia)
Asia demonstrates most clearly how countries with the exact same colonial background can take completely different paths due to their own policies.
• Western impact: The British partition of British India into India and Pakistan (1947) caused a humanitarian disaster and a permanent military conflict over Kashmir. In Southeast Asia, the Vietnam War and the secret American carpet-bombings of Laos and Cambodia left deep economic and physical scars.
• Internal factors: Asia proves that internal choices are decisive. Pakistan has marginalized itself through the enormous power of the military, corruption, and religious extremism. Conversely, countries like Singapore, Zuid-Korea, and now also Vietnam and India—despite a history of colonization or devastating wars—have grown into economic superpowers through stable domestic policies, investments in education, and strong rule of law.

Summary for the Discussion:
1. The West dealt the bad cards: Colonial powers left behind structures (artificial borders, plundered resources, overthrown democracies) that caused these countries to start with an enormous disadvantage.

2. Internal leaders played the game poorly: Many post-colonial leaders exploited that vulnerability for personal gain, corruption, and dictatorship, instead of building institutions.

3. Success is possible: Countries that got their internal affairs in order (such as South Korea or Singapore) became successful despite their Western past. Countries where internal politics failed (such as Venezuela or Zimbabwe) collapsed.

No one cares about Epstein himself anymore. I said Epstein CLASS.
He was prostituting those girls to wealthy assholes. They need to face justice.
It's not happening, because Trump and Elon are very likely involved too.

If the FBI under Kash Patel is releasing files, I indeed don't trust them,
but fabricating the evidence with AI is even over the limit for Kash Patel.
He knows that he's an idiot who can never do that and hide it for ever.
Have you seen the level of amateurism of the censored released files?
It will come out eventually and if a Democrat is in office, he'll be toast.

The witnesses have forgotten NOTHING!! They have testified multiple times to multiple law enforcement agencies. They have been thwarted for many years,
which is a big red sign that powerful wealthy people are involved.

Your side didn't believe that Epstein killed himself in jail. You of course accused Clinton, while Donald Trump was the president at that time, and there are recordings of Epstein saying that he feared being killed by Trump, but you didn't believe the nonsense official story for a second.

That's not completely true. In practice, ICE training standards have varied significantly between divisions and hiring cycles:

* Homeland Security Investigations (HSI): Special Agents complete a rigorous 22- to 27-week curriculum (CITP and HSISAT), which recently began transitioning its specialized phase from Glynco, Georgia, to Charleston, South Carolina.

* Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO): While standard ERO training historically required a 16-week law program and a 5-week Spanish course, a rapid hiring blitz compressed this to an accelerated fast-track schedule.

* The "Lowest Standards" Cohort: During this surge, entry ages dropped to 18, and training was slashed to an intense, 6-day-a-week program cut down to as few as 42 to 56 days. This fast-track eliminated formal language training, relaxed physical fitness metrics, and permitted open-book academic remediation.

* Current Status: Due to performance concerns and internal pushback,
DHS officially ended the fast-track program, restoring the comprehensive traditional training lengths. Agents hired under the lower standards remain active but are required to complete supplemental on-the-job and remedial training.

The primary conflict creating danger for citizens is that fast-tracked ICE agents lack the training to recognize the legal boundaries of their authority or identify unlawful orders.
When compressed instruction strips away foundational legal and tactical education, the real-world consequences create immediate, high-risk friction points between federal agents and the public.

Internal DHS tracking noted a 353 % explosion in use-of-force incidents. This lack of tactical restraint culminated in high-profile tragedies, including ICE agents fatally shooting innocent bystanders and U.S. citizens during operations in cities like Minneapolis and South Padre Island.

They are masked agents armed with military gear.
They should be trained much better, to protect the citizens.

Surprise, surprise, the Trump phone actually isn't a total piece of shit.

We Bought the Trump Phone So You Don’t Have To
only registered users can see external links

Almost no one. Didn't I just say how you mean authoritarian, centralized, government ownership when you say 'communist' one day and classical Marxist theory the next day?

Do you see a classless, stateless society, based on common ownership,
on that 'communist side'?

Until you start supporting that the Epstein class's victims get justice,
I don't want to hear you about this.

OMG that's soooo stupid. The US has the highest GDP in the world, it just
all goes to the wealthy and the military, and the working class gets shit all.

Even your poorest red hick state, Mississippi, makes more money per capita than: France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Latvia, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Malta, but ALL 17 of those EU countries provide higher quality social services to their citizens than the United States OVERALL.

You have the money to have a much better social safety net, education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc, etc, but YOU CHOSE NOT TO.
You prefer to have wealthy people take it all for themselves.

They want to flee their shithole countries. The US is still better than where most of them come from. There are better countries to go, but those countries make it very hard to work without papers. In the US, you have to fear border security and ICE, but there are still many people and employers who give you a job.
That's because the employers almost never face consequences for the illegal employment, only the illegal worker faces consequences.

There are some illegal immigrants in my country, but they cannot find a job
to survive on. They need a shelter or they starve. It's different in Italy;
farmers exploit lots of illegals, so they can stay under the radar.

This is going viral...
only registered users can see external links

Of course I value the lives of law enforcement people, but your average cops start shooting people full of lead, if they even smell danger. These ICE agents are much worse, because they are just pulled of the streets, there are hardly any standards for them, and they get hardly any training. Then you allow them to walk around masked and they never face any accountability. The resulting violence and death is not a bug, but the feature.

The Only 3 Reasons Anyone Is Still a Republican in 2026
only registered users can see external links

Wow, you finally found one! A real criminal immigrant, FINALLY! Congratulations!

Added later:
Actually, I'm not so sure now that he is the monster your 'news' is making him out to be. His pardon was supported by the victim herself. During the June 2026 hearing, a victim advocate read aloud a letter written by the woman Tou Lue Vang had abused. In her letter, she stated: "What happened to me was wrong, but I've had many years to think about this. I have made my peace with it. I forgive him. That was a long time ago. It was over 20 years ago. He is not the same person now.”.

Just stupid excuses, no witnesses support this.
It's the same lie as with all the others.

Bringing out info that MAGA prefers to keep hidden.
Unfortunately, your demented president is spilling the beans daily.

"We had a meeting. And I say, why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right? Why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden,
just a few? Let's have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Send us some nice people. Do you mind? But we always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting,
ridden with crime."

Filty, dirty people from Somalia, vs people from Norway, Sweden, Denmark?
He prefers WHITE SOCIALISTS over BLACK people who are fleeing shitholes.

Why can't you have people from Norway, Sweden, Denmark?
Because they don't want to come to YOUR shithole country.
Only people from worse countries still want to come to yours.

You keep thinking that you know those people, but reality shows that you don't.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who was shot and killed by ICE agents in Houston,
lived in the United States without legal status for nearly 35 years.
He had no criminal record or convictions during his decades in the country.
He raised three U.S. citizen children, all of whom attended or graduated from college. He ran a small home-building business, working from sunrise to sunset
to support his family.
At the time of his death, he was actively working to secure legal status and a work permit, and had submitted his fingerprints to immigration officials.
That's a hardworking man who strengthens your country in every way that you want people to do that. His life was ended by the sick racist occupation force,
that you put in the streets.

Over 70% of individuals held in ICE detention, and the majority of those arrested and deported, have NO criminal convictions. That means that they break the law less than American citizens, because about 33% of American citizens have some form of criminal record.
Only about 5% to 7% of those arrested by ICE have convictions for violent or property offenses. That's also lower than the average American citizen, of which 8% to 10% have ever been convicted of a felony.
ICE is kidnapping DOCUMENTED immigrants in the vicinity of immigration offices, just before or after they are taking actions to further their path to citizenship. They are doing everything that the law demands of them. The only reason for why they are kidnapped and deported is their SKIN COLOR!!!
The only immigrants who are accepted in your country now are WHITE
South Africans. They probably have a similar tendency as Elon Musk
to greet people with an 'awkward arm gesture'.
I'm just bringing out info that MAGA prefers to keep hidden.

As soon as humans developed language, they started dying from stupid dares, maybe even before. Some sorry excuse for a caveman probably died, after his mate grunted some sound of embarrassment when he was being careful. That's evolution at work.

It's even observed behavior in great apes, that resemble showing off, competing, or taking risks in front of others, but there is no clear evidence that apes "dare" each other in the human sense. A dare requires understanding a social challenge like "I bet you won't do it" or "Prove you're brave," which depends on fairly sophisticated language and social norms.

I might prefer that over some of what they eat in Cambodia,
but that's still pretty weird and disgusting.

Google "horrible food in Cambodia" and put it on images, if you have a strong stomach.

Probably for the same reason that is written on your Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Calling an immigrant a "burden" misses the entire point of the American experiment. The poem argues that America's unique strength lies in its ability to take the world's most vulnerable people and help them become the nation's greatest asset.

How much evidence do I need to give you that your ideas are completely at odds
with everything that your country is based on?

That's a failure of education. Most of it has been stripped of your education, because it is seen as criticism of 'Murica', and replaced with an idea of FREEDOM!, without teaching kids the actual principles of liberty.

Your history was already sanitized enough, before MAGA, but that was
not pro-Murica enough. Unless they make belief that slaves were treated well,
it's called 'critical race theory' and stripped of the history books.
This is 'Why the Rest of the World Thinks Americans Are Brainwashed'.
only registered users can see external links

Oh, not a black woman this time, but a 'communist'.
Like there are no completely useless idiots wearing MAGA hats.

No evidence at all that this person genuinely identifies as a communist.
When you are saying "I love communism", when you are stealing, you have NOT understood Marx's ideology. However, I'm sure she is on the left or anarchist side of politics somewhere. Since the term has been used to describe very different, and even very contradictory ideas, it's easy to use or misuse the label for almost anything.

Understand that they are not arguing that a certain principle in communist theory encourages or requires such actions. They are calling someone a communist, then claim that communism was the cause for the action, and then call communism a flawed ideology. That's circular reasoning. It's either incredibly lazy arguing or intentionally deceptive. That's however the low standard of reasoning in all the articles you are posting.

As an analogy, suppose someone stole food from a government office and posted:
"I love capitalism."
You wouldn't immediately conclude they were a committed capitalist, had studied Adam Smith, or that capitalism caused the theft. It could be sarcasm, trolling, a joke, or a genuine belief. You'd want more evidence before drawing conclusions about their political identity.

By the way, if you are working for DoorDash, you are going hungry anyway.

I recognized the name, so I read a bit about him. Seems like he struggled a lot to reconcile Christian scripture with scientific evidence for an old Earth and biological evolution.

Are you talking about that his home filled with specimens, animal as well as mineral, live as well as dead? And that he claimed that he wanted to eat at least one individual of all animal species? A strange intention indeed. Sounds a little like some traditional Chinese medicinal practices. The underlying idea is often that an animal's characteristics can be transferred to the person consuming a particular body part. Examples include:
- Tiger bones for strength.
- Deer antlers for vitality and virility.
- Bear bile for liver or gallbladder ailments.
- Rhino horn (historically) for reducing fever, despite the horn being composed primarily of keratin, like human fingernails.

For most of human history, people had no knowledge of cells, proteins, DNA, hormones,
or biochemistry. Instead, they relied on observation, analogy, and experience. It seemed intuitive that:
- A strong animal might literally contain "strength."
- A fertile animal might confer fertility.
- A fierce predator might impart courage or aggression.
- An organ might heal the corresponding organ in humans.
This way of thinking appears independently in many cultures because it fits how humans naturally reason about the world. It's what people would call 'common sense', until it's replaced by actual knowledge and understanding.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"

That statement indeed reflects the standard interpretation of classical Marxism, but Marx himself did not always use the word "socialism" in that way. It also does not agree with the definitions that I provided, which are mostly how people interpreted them TODAY.

If you look at the Marxist idea of communism, it means the absence of a state; classless, stateless, and based on common ownership rather than state ownership.
When YOU are talking about 'communism', you mean authoritarian, centralized, government ownership.
I am definitely not a communist by that definition. I think that a government is useful.
It's very hard to organize effective cooperation without some form of government.

Is it really that difficult for you to imagine your preferred system going to an extreme
that you wouldn't like?

The consumer is ONLY in control if there are many protections in place. The current type of capitalism is creating monopolies, in which the consumer has NO choice at all.
--------------------------------------- added after 24 hours

Here's an idea of a sign that capitalism is out of control;
your Environmental Protection Agency deciding that companies can just pollute the water and air as much as they want with forever chemicals and heavy metals that cause cancer, birth defects and cause severe neurological damage in the brain.

Integration does involve change, but change is not the same as cultural loss. Throughout history, immigrant communities have often preserved their language, traditions, food, religion, and values while also participating fully in the societies they joined. Integration is about learning to function within a shared civic framework, not erasing one's identity.
In many countries, cultures have evolved and become richer through the exchange
of ideas, customs, and traditions. The real challenge is balancing social cohesion with cultural diversity, not choosing one at the expense of the other.

One passage is doing more than talking about "culture", it is primarily arguing for representation, familiarity, and a sense of belonging. Notice the examples the author gives:
- Reading books by Black authors.
- Watching films made by or about Black people.
- Attending a historically Black church.
- Making Blackness feel like "home" rather than something encountered once a year.

Their culture from Africa was already taken from them, by the slave owners. What is considered black culture, has only developed during that period and what came after. The black church is Christian, a religion that was forced upon them. Gospel music comes from slaves who were singing while doing backbreaking work, to make it more bearable. Their food traditions ("soul food") comes from the skill of making animal feed edible.

The article says: "Please, for the love of all things holy, don’t let your child’s exposure to Black culture begin and end with Black History Month.". I agree with that. They should be represented every day of the year.
Meanwhile, your administration is trying to erase not just Black History Month, but every book by a black author or with a black character in it. You are trying to erase their history in your country. Your administration is kicking out black people from all leadership positions and trying to make it impossible for them to elect black representation.
You want to completely erase their own identity, while you simultaneously expect them to accept that they don't have the same value as you. You want them to accept that American history is WHITE history. That's what you mean with "the loss of their culture".

We have discussed this enough for you to know better.
Even the Bible is a manual for how to treat slaves of your own tribe
and how to treat other tribes that you enslave.

Reparations are surely a sore spot for you, but for someone who wants equity,
it's simply a duty to lift up the ones who need it. That's best for everyone.

You're just flipping it around.
I don't blame companies for doing what profits them most either,
I'm blaming the working class for not standing up to them.
We didn't get good contracts, retirements, investments in employee development, etc, because companies cared about us, we got that, because we forced them to provide it.

Explaining to boomers why company loyalty no longer exists
only registered users can see external links

Diary Of A CEO Is Making You LESS Successful
only registered users can see external links

Neal Brennan | My Problem with Guns
only registered users can see external links

The story about why Grok started calling itself "MechaHitler"
only registered users can see external links

And a nice preview of how asshole tech-bros might eventually kill all humans.

Clearly a video created with AI, but the story is accurate.

Where do you think that I think that slavery started?
The 'occupation' of slave might be older than the 'occupation' of prostitute.
I don't think that where it started is an argument for anything.
I just see the end as a huge step in the development of humanity.
The ones who gain from distorting the truth, are very likely disagreeing with me.

Communism means centralized government ownership.
Socialism means publicly controlled and publicly owned.
Capitalism means owned by a small minority of wealthy people.

Ownership means power. Why do you want to give all the power away to wealthy people?

The last remaining systems that are any good in your country are publicly funded.
Almost everything that has been privatized has turned to shit for the users and a
tool to extract money from the pockets of the users into the pockets of the owners.

"before it gets out of control." OMG you crazy person, there is hardly any communism
or socialism left. Almost everything has been capitalized.
You are lucky that you don't have to pay some company for the air you are breathing YET.

Have you considered how capitalism could get out of control?
Tell me what that would look like. Show me that you have the mental exploration power.

Because life cannot be just a grind, every day, until you die.
Well, actually it can, but I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't.

I don't know your experience with digital video games, but some are the opposite
of mind numbing.
- Games require active thinking, not passive consumption.
- Players solve problems, make decisions, and adapt to new situations.
- They develop cognitive skills such as planning, memory, attention, spatial reasoning, and strategic thinking.
- Many games promote deep focus ("flow"), a state of intense concentration rather than mental disengagement.
- Multiplayer games build social skills through teamwork, communication, and coordination.
- Creative games encourage design and experimentation, allowing players to build, invent, and explore.

The effects depend on the game and how it's played. Some games are intellectually demanding, while others are more relaxing or repetitive.

Research doesn't support the blanket claim that video games are mind numbing;
instead, benefits and drawbacks depend on the type of game and the amount of time spent playing.

That Mitchell and Webb Look - God, protect us from your worshippers.
only registered users can see external links

Sheep solar
only registered users can see external links
Farmers are reporting healthier sheep and improved pasture quality after grazing livestock beneath more than one million solar panels. The results highlight how agrivoltaics can boost agricultural productivity while generating clean energy, demonstrating that farming and solar power can successfully coexist.

BYD's $20 Battery Just Killed the Last Argument Against Renewables
only registered users can see external links

Why the Rest of the World Thinks Americans Are Brainwashed
only registered users can see external links

If Cops Ask "Know Why I Stopped You?" - Say THIS (Simple Phrase)
only registered users can see external links

Who knows a better phrase?

If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.
only registered users can see external links

📜 Barack Obama (2009–2017): Modernization & Green Energy
Obama focused on preparing the power grid for renewable energy integration.
• $4.5 billion in federal stimulus (via the 2009 Recovery Act), which was matched by private companies to create a total investment of over $8 billion.
• This funding went directly toward deploying digital "Smart Grid" technologies, including installing smart meters in millions of homes.
• He fast-tracked federal permitting to build massive, interstate transmission lines designed to carry wind and solar power.

🛠️ Donald Trump (2017–2021): Fossil Fuels & Grid Stability
Trump completely shifted the focus toward traditional energy sources and repealed Obama's climate regulations.
• He introduced no major new federal multi-billion-dollar funds specifically for green grid expansion.
• Instead, the administration focused on deregulation and financial support to keep aging coal and nuclear plants online to protect the grid's "baseload" (baseline capacity).
• Federal permitting processes were redirected to accelerate traditional fossil fuel infrastructure, such as oil and gas pipelines.

The administration views energy through the lens of policy, while the market views it through the lens of profit. The Trump administration uses federal policy to keep older, traditional power plants running because they provide steady, 24/7 power. However, private companies and utility providers are driven strictly by the bottom line. Because wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new energy ever invented, the private sector keeps building them anyway, not for political reasons, but because they make the most financial sense.

This misalignment is precisely what causes severe, systemic stress on the power grid. It creates a structural mismatch between where electricity is being made (the market) and where the physical infrastructure is being built to move it (government policy).

The market is flooding the system with cheap solar and wind proposals, but because federal approvals for large interstate transmission lines have been slowed down, there are not enough physical wires to connect them. This has created a massive 2,600 gigawatt backlog of energy projects waiting in line just to plug into the grid.Clean energy developers are facing average wait times of five years (and up to 12 years in some regions) to get a connection. The market wants to supply cheap power, but the infrastructure is physically legally bottlenecked.

CONCLUSION:
Just like you once proposed, the market is solving climate change. The problem is that your shortsighted administration is trying to keep financially obsolete technology alive.

Here's a fact check of your hit piece:

Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verdict
NYC's grid faces serious challenges --------------------------- Supported
Heat waves expose reliability issues --------------------------- Supported
New York needs major infrastructure investment ---------- Supported
Mamdani alone "helped cause" the grid's problems -------- Poorly supported / overstated
Mamdani is responsible for decades of underinvestment -- Not supported
Mamdani is against investing in the grid ----------------------- Not supported

The article argues that because Mamdani supported New York's 2019 climate law and other progressive energy policies, he bears responsibility for today's grid problems.

There are several problems with your article:

1. The timing doesn't fit.
The grid is old because much of it was built decades ago.
New York has underinvested in transmission and modernization for many years under governors, legislatures, regulators, utilities, and market operators from both parties.
That cannot reasonably be attributed to one assembly member who entered office in 2021.

2. The 2019 climate law was passed before Mamdani took office.
The article says he "defended" the law. That's true.
But he did not write or pass it as a legislator, it became law BEFORE he was sworn into the Assembly.
Supporting an existing law is different from being responsible for creating today's infrastructure.

3. Grid reliability is influenced by many actors.
These include:
- the state legislature
- the governor
- the New York State Public Service Commission
- Con Edison
- New York Independent System Operator
- federal regulators
- local permitting
- utilities' capital investment decisions
Assigning primary blame to a single state legislator is an oversimplification.

Question: "Is Mamdani investing in the power grid?"
As mayor, Mamdani does not directly control New York's electric grid.
Most major grid investment decisions are made by:
- Con Edison
- NYISO
- the Public Service Commission
- the governor
- the state legislature
- federal agencies
The mayor has only indirect influence through:
- permitting
- city-owned buildings
- climate planning
- advocacy
- zoning
So asking whether Mamdani himself is "investing in the grid" is a bit like asking whether a mayor is personally expanding the interstate highway system. He can support projects, but he doesn't control the primary investment decisions.

Question: Is he advocating for grid investment?
Generally, yes, but not in the way the article implies.
Mamdani has consistently argued for:
- expanded renewable energy,
- building electrification,
- public investment,
- cleaner electricity,
- public ownership of some energy infrastructure.
Critics argue these policies increase demand before enough supply is built.
Supporters argue they require more grid investment, not less, and that public investment should accelerate transmission and clean generation.
So it's inaccurate to say he opposes investment in the grid. The disagreement is over what kind of grid should be built and how quickly the transition should occur.

The article is an opinion piece, not a news report, and its central rhetorical move is to connect a real infrastructure problem to Mamdani's broader political agenda. There are reasonable criticisms one can make of his energy policies, for example, that aggressive electrification should be paired with faster additions of reliable generation and transmission, but saying that he "helped cause" New York's longstanding grid problems overstates both his role and his authority.

By the way, they grid problems in Houston and Dallas–Fort Worth are worse.

Across much of the U.S., one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity demand, and a major source of new grid stress, is the rapid expansion of AI and cloud data centers.

In Northern Virginia, Dallas–Fort Worth, and parts of Ohio, data centers are indeed among the biggest drivers of new electricity demand.
In New York City, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, peak air-conditioning demand during heat waves remains a larger source of grid stress today, although data centers are adding to overall demand.
Nationally, grid operators point to a combination of data center growth, electrification (EVs and heat pumps), population growth, industrial expansion, aging infrastructure, and increasingly frequent extreme weather as the main pressures.

I remember you saying once: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", related to your third world electricity grid.

When Joe Biden campaigned for president and originally introduced his legislative proposal in early 2021, the comprehensive program was called "The American Jobs Plan". The original program proposed a massive overall investment of $2.3 trillion. It was designed to be a sweeping transformation of the U.S. economy, heavily focused on climate change, green energy, and the electrical grid. This included $100 billion specifically to modernize the power grid to allow the transition to clean energy.
Because of a split Senate and pushback from Republicans, who objected to the high cost, the bill had to be heavily watered down to gain bipartisan support.
The compromise law was named the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It provided $1.2 trillion in total spending ($550 billion of which was brand-new federal spending).
The Power Grid ($65 billion): This survived as the single largest investment in clean energy transmission and electric grid reliability in U.S. history, designed to build thousands of miles of new high-voltage power lines to connect wind and solar farms to cities.

Immediately upon taking office, President Donald Trump aggressively pivoted away from Joe Biden’s green energy policies to favor fossil fuels and nuclear power. He issued the "Unleashing American Energy" Executive Order, which froze billions in undisbursed funds from both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Following this, his administration passed his signature tax legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which effectively dismantled or accelerated the expiration of most Biden-era clean energy tax incentives.

Private Sector Data Center Pressures: While federal funding for a "green" grid has vanished, the massive energy demand driven by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom has forced tech hyperscalers to continue heavily investing private capital into regional grid upgrades.

Basic Maintenance Appropriations: Under the power of the purse, Congress preserved bare-minimum funding for fundamental, non-partisan physical grid repairs and grid-hardening against extreme weather, though heavily divorced from any zero-carbon goals.

CONCLUSION:
You are blaming ONE mayor who you hate, for something that is a NATIONAL problem, which is mostly created by Republican's refusal to invest in your electricity grid.

THE BOOGIE MAN OF SOCIALISM! | Armageddon Update
only registered users can see external links

OMG, that's funny. All his tamper tantrums are about HIM!!!
He doesn't care about you or anyone, but himself.

Donald Trump is too emotional to be president
only registered users can see external links

Good point, although somewhat crudely communicated.
Lots of petty men said that women are too emotional,
and that's why they couldn't vote for Kamala Harris.
Trump has about 10 temper tantrums per day, 100 if you count his nightly tweets.
I've never seen Kamala Harris be that emotional, even once.

Oh sure, NOW it is getting addressed in congress, but that was AFTER your side's attempt to do it through your corrupted Supreme Court has failed. So far, they are just not corrupted enough. It looks like most of your justices still care just enough to NOT be remembered as complete traitors to The Constitution.

You keep thinking of immigrants as abusers of the system, but they are mostly hard working people, who are looking for a future for their children. Your country was built on the backs of them.

If enough people agree with you, it could be easily changed.
That's democracy; you don't always get what you want.