CRIME
The crime decline began before Trump returned to office in January 2025. The large drop in murders started after the COVID-era spike:
2020–2021: major increase in homicides.
2022: homicide began falling.
2023: large declines continued.
2024: another major decline.
So the 2024 improvement was already underway before any Trump administration policies could have had a national effect

MASS SHOOTINGS
Yes, some measures show mass shootings were lower in 2024 than in the peak years around 2021–2023. But that decline began before Trump took office, so it cannot reasonably be credited to Trump policies.

OVERDOSE DEATHS
The same applies. The decline started before 2025:
Overdose deaths peaked around 2022.
Declines accelerated through late 2023 and 2024.
The CDC specifically noted that deaths had been declining since late 2023.
Possible contributors researchers point to include:
- wider naloxone availability,
- expanded treatment access,
- changes in the illicit drug supply,
- public health interventions,
- changes in fentanyl patterns.
What did Trump do to cause it? Essentially NOTHING, because most of the data period occurred before his second administration began.

DRUGS ON THE STREETS
That is not something the data clearly shows. Overdose deaths are down, but that does not automatically mean fewer drugs are available. The decline in overdose deaths began before Trump took office and is likely due to multiple factors: more naloxone access, changes in the illicit drug supply, treatment efforts, and public health interventions. Trump did not cause the overdose decline that began in 2023–2024.
His administration has emphasized border enforcement and drug interdiction, but there is not yet evidence that those policies produced a measurable reduction in
drug availability.

Here's some negative data that he ACTUALLY CAUSED:

• National debt increased by about $7.8 trillion during Trump’s first term.
Trump signed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal revenue, while spending continued to rise. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the tax cuts would add about $1.5 trillion to deficits over 10 years (before accounting for interest).

• Federal deficits increased before COVID.
The deficit rose from about $585 billion in 2016 to about $984 billion in 2019. This happened before pandemic spending and was driven partly by the Trump tax cuts and increased spending.

• Tariffs increased costs for American businesses and consumers.
Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of imports, especially from China. Economic studies found that the cost was largely paid by U.S. importers and passed on through higher prices rather than being absorbed by China.

• Farmers lost export markets because of Trump’s trade war.
After Trump imposed tariffs, China and other countries retaliated against U.S. agricultural exports. The administration responded with about $28 billion in taxpayer-funded aid to farmers to compensate for losses caused by the trade dispute.

• Emergency preparedness funding was reduced or targeted for cuts.
The Trump administration proposed reducing FEMA preparedness grants by about $646 million and eliminated the BRIC disaster mitigation program, which had funded billions of dollars in pre-disaster projects. These were direct administration policy decisions.

• Public health preparedness was targeted for major cuts.
The Trump administration proposed large reductions to CDC programs, including about $3.6 billion (around 44%) in discretionary funding. These cuts would affect disease surveillance, outbreak response, and emergency preparedness.

That's nonsense. First of all, there is no such thing as free health care. Governments can fund healthcare with taxes or let people pay premiums for health insurance. It's both funded by citizens, but a 'single payer' system is just more efficient and it enriches less people who don't contribute anything to healthcare.

It's impossible to keep wildfires under control, for a country like Canada, with ~347 million hectares of forest and hardly any road access to most of it. They spend about the same as the US, with 8.3 times less people. The US has ~310 million hectares of forest and about 10 times the number of wildfires.
Canada has roughly 9 times more forest per person than the U.S.
The area that is burned yearly is on average the same too. The only difference is that Canada has more large wildfires, occasionally. A single Canadian wildfire can burn hundreds of thousands of hectares. That's because they cannot get to it soon enough to put it out. Often, they chose to not even try. Why?
Imagine a lightning strike starts a fire 300 km from the nearest town. Sending dozens of aircraft and hundreds of firefighters may:
- cost millions of dollars
- put crews at risk
- have little chance of success if winds are strong
Instead, agencies prioritize fires threatening:
- communities
- infrastructure
- Indigenous communities
- power lines
- highways
- valuable timber

Canada is the second-largest country on Earth. About 90% of Canadians live within roughly 160 km (100 miles) of the U.S. border, while most of the country's forests lie far to the north. They simply cannot station enough firefighters and aircraft to immediately attack every remote ignition.

That doesn't mean additional investments in prevention, prescribed burns, aircraft, or staffing couldn't help, they likely would in some situations. But the idea that Canada's fires persist simply because it spends money on universal health care instead of firefighting doesn't match how wildfire management actually works. Weather, fuel conditions, terrain, and the sheer scale of Canada's wilderness are often the dominant factors.

It's not like the US is over-funding emergency services.
FEMA Non-Disaster Grant Programs: -$646 million, Proposed
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, (BRIC) Program eliminated (billions in future grants canceled)
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) ≈ -$491 million, Proposed
CDC Discretionary Funding ≈ -$3.6 billion (44%), Proposed
NOAA (overall) ≈ -26% Proposed cut
NOAA Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research ≈ -74%, Proposed
FEMA workforce ~200 positions eliminated, broader workforce reductions followed

If you implemented single payer, Americans would be able to afford more for wildfire
and other disaster prevention, response and relief.

Ice killed a man, in front of his THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.

only registered users can see external links

On July 13 in Biddeford, Maine, 26-year-old Colombian father Johan Sebastián Guerrero was shot and killed by an ICE officer while his young daughter was present. Guerrero was on his way to work and was described by neighbors as a devoted father building a life for his family.

ICE initially claimed the shooting happened during a targeted immigration operation. The agency said agents were looking for someone with a final deportation order, attempted a vehicle stop, and opened fire because the driver tried to flee and posed a danger to public safety.

That explanation quickly fell apart. Officials later confirmed Guerrero was not the person ICE was trying to arrest. He was not the target of the operation, despite ICE's initial framing making it sound as if they had confronted the person they were looking for.

The second major claim, that Guerrero used his vehicle as a weapon, has also been heavily challenged. Witness accounts, questions about the sequence of events, the lack of body-camera footage, and video evidence showing the aftermath have led critics to argue that ICE's version of events was misleading and that the agency presented a justification that does not match what later emerged.

This case has become another example of a pattern they say is deeply troubling: aggressive enforcement tactics followed by official explanations that change when outside scrutiny begins. Supporters of ICE argue that officers must be able to respond quickly when they believe there is a threat.

But the central issue remains simple: a father was killed in front of his child, and the public is demanding answers about why ICE's first explanation did not match the facts that came out afterward.

Verdict: Misleading / not established as written.

The headline combines a confirmed event (a Houston man was killed in an ICE-involved shooting) with an unproven allegation (that he had methamphetamine in his vehicle).
The evidence does not show that the FBI has confirmed meth was found in the car.

What is confirmed
The man was Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Houston construction worker and father. He was fatally shot by an ICE agent during an enforcement operation on July 7, 2026.
Federal officials said the shooting occurred after agents attempted to stop his van and alleged he used the vehicle in a threatening way. Witnesses in the van dispute that account and say the shooting was unprovoked.
Authorities have acknowledged that Salgado Araujo was not the original target of the ICE operation; DHS said he resembled the person agents were looking for.

What about the “meth in his car” claim?
The FBI obtained a search warrant based on agents’ belief that they saw “crystal-like substances” in the van that could be narcotics.
That is not the same as confirming meth was found. Reports indicate testing had not established that the substance was methamphetamine.
Salgado Araujo’s family attorney said the material was salt, reportedly used by workers as part of a homemade electrolyte mixture, not meth. Local prosecutors also said the drug claim had not been verified.

Bottom line
The statement “FBI says he had meth in his car” overstates what investigators had publicly established. A more accurate version would be:
“The FBI said agents believed they saw possible narcotics in the van and sought testing, but authorities had not publicly confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine.”

So the headline appears to turn an investigative allegation into a confirmed fact, which is not supported by the available reporting.

Nigel Farage is one of Britain's best-known politicians and the leader of Reform UK, a right-wing populist party. Critics, particularly on the centre-left, argue that his populism is largely performative, saying he presents himself as an anti-establishment outsider while benefiting from wealthy donors, media influence and years as one of the country's most prominent political figures. Supporters reject that criticism and see him as a genuine voice for voters who feel ignored by the political establishment.

The by-election was triggered by financial controversies surrounding Farage. Reports revealed he had received a previously undisclosed £5 million gift from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne before becoming an MP. Police also opened an investigation into £500,000 in donations to Reform UK linked to the mother of one of Farage's closest allies, George Cottrell. Farage denies any wrongdoing.

As pressure mounted, Farage resigned as MP for Clacton, automatically triggering a by-election. He then immediately announced he would stand again, arguing that the people of Clacton, not journalists, political opponents or investigators, should decide whether he deserved to remain their MP. He framed the election as "the people versus the establishment." Critics called it a political stunt, saying it shifted attention away from the allegations and turned them into a popularity contest.

That opened the door for Count Binface. Created by comedian Jon Harvey, Binface wears a silver bin-shaped helmet and mixes absurd promises with genuine political satire. His aim is to use humour to expose what he sees as the hypocrisy and absurdity of British politics.

When the major parties chose not to contest the election, Binface became Farage's most visible challenger. His slogan, "The only one who turned up," mocked both the absent parties and Farage's attempt to manufacture a personal mandate. His campaign insists that "the bin is the joke, the ballot is not," encouraging people to see him as a serious protest vote.

Farage is still the favourite to win, but Binface has already changed the story. Instead of headlines about Farage winning a fresh mandate, much of the coverage is about Britain's best-known right-wing populist being challenged by a man dressed as a silver dustbin. Even if Binface loses, he has made it much harder for Farage and Reform UK to control the narrative.

Reform has arguably made matters worse by repeatedly responding to Binface instead of ignoring him. Every attack gives him more publicity, more jokes and more media coverage. As a result, Binface has succeeded in making Farage look defensive, while turning what was meant to be a serious political exercise into a national punchline.

Can Count Binface actually win? Technically yes, but Farage remains the clear favourite. Farage has a strong personal following in Clacton, while Reform UK is the dominant political force in the area. However, this is not a normal election. With the major parties absent, Binface has become the main alternative for voters who want to protest against Farage.

Even if Binface does not win, he has already achieved something politically significant.
A strong result would weaken Farage's claim that the by-election is a clear public endorsement, while the fact that a man in a silver bin costume has become his main challenger has made it much harder for Farage and Reform UK to control the story.

Who is Count Binface
only registered users can see external links

Too bad that it's Canadian pine, that's highly unsuitable for smoking food.
If those foul trees are gone anyway, maybe they can replace them with fruitwoods
like Apple or Cherry, or nut-bearing trees like Pecan, for a mild smoke.
Actually, you might prefer the classic BBQ flavor, so they could please you by
replanting Hickory or Oak.

The "Erdoğan method" in the USA

Corporate Capitulation (Big Business Wins):

The core of your argument is that modern American media outlets are no longer independent watchdogs; they are small cogs inside massive, soulless conglomerates. When faced with a choice between defending a journalistic principle or securing a multi-billion-dollar merger, corporate executives will always choose the money. For Paramount and ABC, paying a $31 million settlement to Trump was not a legal defeat, but a minor transaction fee to protect their corporate transactions from political interference.

The "Erdoğan Method":

The strategy used against US media mirrors the exact playbook Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used to dismantle Turkey’s independent press throughout the 2000s and 2010s. Erdoğan did not simply shut down all critical newspapers by decree; he weaponized the state apparatus to force them into submission.
The parallels to the Trump administration's tactics are striking:

• Regulatory Chantage (Blackmail): Erdoğan famously used aggressive tax audits, massive fines, and state regulatory bodies to financially cripple media conglomerates (like the Doğan Media Group) that published critical coverage. In the US, Trump and his allies utilized the FCC and antitrust regulators as leverage, threatening to block vital corporate mergers until the parent companies capitulated.

• Forced Weaponized Consolidation: Once Erdoğan broke the financial back of independent media owners, those outlets were systematically sold off to pro-government oligarchs and crony conglomerates. This mirrors the current rapid consolidation in the US, where the government waves through unprecedented mega-mergers, like the $111 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery deal, effectively placing major networks like CNN and CBS into the hands of a few compliant corporate entities.

• Incentivized Self-Censorship: Under Erdoğan, Turkish media oligarchs quickly realized that keeping their lucrative state contracts required neutering their own newsrooms. Similarly, US media giants now practice preemptive self-censorship, settling lawsuits and altering journalistic standards because they know aggressive reporting poses a direct threat to their corporate profits and regulatory approvals.

Summary:

Ultimately, both methods achieve the same goal: they neutralize the press without needing to officially ban free speech. By squeezing the corporate parent companies where it hurts most, their wallets and their ability to merge, the state ensures that the "watchdog" willingly puts on its own leash.

Hunter Biden wins $1.7 million in punitive damages against Patrick Byrne.
only registered users can see external links

Case: Hunter Biden sued Patrick Byrne, a former CEO of Overstock.com and a political commentator, for defamation.
Claim: Biden alleged that Byrne made false statements accusing him of serious crimes and misconduct, including claims tied to corruption and the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Outcome: The court entered judgment for Hunter Biden after Byrne failed to properly defend the case and did not comply with court orders (a default judgment, rather than a verdict after a full trial).
Damages: The court awarded Hunter Biden $1 in nominal damages and $1.7 million in punitive damages.
Meaning: It was a real legal win for Hunter Biden: a court judgment finding Byrne liable and awarding damages.

As far as I can find, Trump has NEVER won any of the defamation cases that he started. Sometimes, the other side backs down and settles, if Trump abuses the power of his office to coerce the plaintiffs into submission, or if they let him have the settlement as a bribe.

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