I googled 'corned beef hash' and yes, that looks very similar.

Did Anthony Scaramucci turn into a lefty, or what?
only registered users can see external links

I'm not saying that it's 'natural' cheese. It's quickly processed crap,
instead of the 'natural' process that takes several weeks, at least.
Still, it's made of 'biological' ingredients and not 'chemical' ingredients.
Those are not accurate definitions, but they are commonly understood.

What is generally considered 'real' cheese is a dairy product made by coagulating milk into curds and whey, usually with the help of starter bacteria and rennet, and then processing (fermenting) the curds into the final cheese.
Those processed cheese slices sometimes contain 'real' cheese, but those are often low quality, like trimmings or off-spec batches. And then they put in additional ingredients and melt it.
The sheen is mostly because it's a more homogeneous mixture.

'Real' cheese isn't necessarily more healthy than 'artificial' cheese.
Some products are made from unsaturated vegetable oils, which are
healthier than milk fat, which is predominantly saturated fat.

There is a lot of processed crap going around, but fortunately they are not making cheese from petroleum oils (yet).
The whole 'petroleum cheese' thing is actually a big misunderstanding that comes from a few specific things:

The 'Plastic' Confusion: The US FDA describes the process of making American processed cheese (like Kraft singles) as melting cheese into a "homogeneous plastic mass". People hear 'plastic' and think of oil-based synthetic materials, but the FDA just uses the word in its scientific sense to mean "pliable" or "moldable".

Imitation Cheese: Cheap fake cheese (often used on fast-food burgers or frozen pizzas) isn't real cheese. It is made by mixing milk proteins with vegetable oils like palm or canola oil. When melted, it can look greasy and synthetic, leading people to mistake it for mineral or petroleum oil.

The Wax Rind: The shiny wax coating around cheeses like Edam or Gouda does contain paraffin, which is a petroleum byproduct. However, this is just the packaging to protect the cheese, it is not part of the food itself and you are not supposed to eat it.

Artificial Colors: In the past, some bright yellow or orange processed cheeses used artificial food dyes (like Yellow 5 and 6) that are chemically derived from petroleum sources. Today, most brands have switched to natural plant extracts like annatto.

So while processed cheese definitely has its flaws, it's still based on dairy and plants, not crude mineral oil!"

There might be hope for you yet. (Or do you like Greg Gutfeld?)

Mike Johnson is pitching socialism again.
only registered users can see external links

Half of MAGA would love everything he said, if it was explained to them,
without telling them that it was the DSA platform. If you tell em that it's Trump's new plans, they would cheer for it as the best plans that he ever came up with.

He has to read it in a certain tone, to make you understand that you are supposed to
NOT like it.

"a multi-party democracy"
OMG, how many of them turned MAGA for hating the 2-party system?

So sad that no one who is still MAGA is smart enough to see through his D-tier acting.
Damn, the Trump administration is DEI for stupid incompetent white boys.

This is a Dutch YouTube cooking channel that I watch a lot.
There's 3 grilled cheece sandwich recipes on it:

A 'tosti' is just any toasted sandwich, but most classically made with thin white bread, ham, and mild Gouda cheese.
With onions: only registered users can see external links
Flame-tosti: only registered users can see external links
Bulgogi tosti: only registered users can see external links

In my childhood, we had a 'stovetop sandwich toaster'. Now we have this one:
only registered users can see external links

If you put the sandwich between a folded sheet of baking paper, there's no cleaning needed afterwards.

Our left-over potatoes are usually baked with whatever meat is close to expiration date, with some onions, mushrooms or left over vegetables, all in one pan.
It's not mashed, it's just stir-fried loosely.
We call it 'kliekjespan', which can be translated to 'leftovers bake'.

You have a president who's biggest fan is giving courses online on how to trick and exploit women to become prostitutes for you. Trump used the power of his office to successfully pressure Romanian officials, to lift the Tate brothers' travel restrictions, allowing them to flee Romania, where they were awaiting trial, for r@pe and sex trafficking charges.

The Tates are now fighting extradition from the US to the UK, after being arrested in the US, for 59 criminal charges;
Andrew Tate: 42 charges
Tristan Tate: 17 charges
The allegations include, among other things:
• r@pe,
• sexual assault,
• actual bodily harm (assault causing injury),
• arranging/facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation,
• offences relating to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography.

Apparently, the Tates and Trump's friend circles overlap at Mar-a-Lago, and Barron Trump is friends with the Tates. They all express admiration for each other.

Find me 1 Democrat who hangs around with r@pists and pe.dos as much as Trump.

If the Native-born Americans were gone, there would be 7,109 innocent people
still alive. Deny that math.

Native-born Americans still account for a larger percentage of homicides.

2013–2022 homicide convictions in Texas:
Group ---------------------- Homicide convictions ----- homicide conviction rate
Native-born Americans ---------- 7,109 ----------------- 3.0 per 100,000
Undocumented immigrants ------- 472 ----------------- 2.2 per 100,000
Legal immigrants -------------------- 336 ----------------- 1.2 per 100,000

Grifers like him have a skill to adapt to the worship of any person or the support of any messages that their side adopts. And since that side is immune to any level of hypocrisy, they will accept his grift with open arms. He is considered to be funny by his viewers.
So, I'm sorry to tell you that he's here to stay.

only registered users can see external links

Many scholars distinguish between humor and mere offensiveness. A conventional joke usually contains some kind of structure, such as incongruity, misdirection, irony, or a punchline. In contrast, some political "edgy jokes" consist primarily of saying something taboo or demeaning, with the violation itself treated as the entertainment.

Researchers studying far-right and extremist communication argue that, in these cases, the point is often not comedy, but to:
• signal in-group membership,
• test how much prejudice an audience will tolerate,
• provoke outrage from opponents,
• make hateful ideas seem more ordinary through repetition,
• preserve deniability ("can't you take a joke?").

When your side STILL votes for a guy like Ken Paxton, over less egregious options,
you could stand to be a little more humble.

only registered users can see external links

Indeed, even a garbage bag looks good on a Victoria's Secret model.
If they actually want to show off a dress for very large sizes, they need her.

Big women are very much annoyed if a brand only uses those skinny models.
If they still want to sell clothes, to more than 10% of women, get with the times.
That doesn't mean to only use models like her, that means to diversify.

Jesse Watters is a pervert
only registered users can see external links

They know how to save rural communities. They just won’t do it.
only registered users can see external links

It's possible; sumo wrestlers also work out.
They just need to eat a lot, to stay 'in shape'.

This Question Stumped All The Conservatives
only registered users can see external links

Who can do better? I bet you can't, without making up shit.

That's how those Instagram girls build asses like that.
Apparently, it works on guys too.

Mr. President, Where’s the 300 Yard Gash in the Reflecting Pool?
only registered users can see external links

Oh sure there are/were people who leave/left the Democratic Party and become Republicans or MAGA, but it always is for the culture-war bullshit (liberal bullshit)
that Republicans/MAGA are spouting.
And when they leave, it's because they see that it's nothing but bullshit.

There are no poor or middle class Americans who switch from blue to red
for legitimate reasons. It's either ill-conceived selfishness, bigotry or racism.
If you don't think so, find me one who provides decent reasoning.

People Are Getting Brutally Honest About What It’s Like To Cut Off MAGA Family Members
only registered users can see external links

Leaving MAGA - Why She Joined MAGA and Why She Left
Victoria Hearst on Trauma, Politics, and Texas
only registered users can see external links

"Why can't the human behind the AI not just be themselves?"
If the 'human behind the AI' is claiming that the AI isn't AI, I agree.

"Why create a fantasy world when there is a real 1 to experience?"
The existence of a real world does not make fantasy unnecessary. Reality is valuable, but it is also limited. Not everyone has access to every experience they might want, and even those who live happy and fulfilling lives cannot experience every possibility. Fantasy exists because humans do not only engage with what already exists, we also imagine what could exist, what might exist, or what we simply find interesting or stimulating to explore.

The real world is also not always kind, fair, or satisfying. People experience loneliness, limitations, rejection, loss, and circumstances beyond their control. Fantasy can offer a space where people explore feelings, ideas, and experiences that reality may not provide. That does not mean they hate reality or want to abandon it. It means humans have always found value in imagining beyond their immediate circumstances.

But fantasy is not only an escape from suffering. Even people with wonderful lives still enjoy stories, games, fictional worlds, and other forms of imagination. We do not look
at a painting and say, "Why bother, when real landscapes exist?" The purpose of fiction is not simply to recreate reality, but to explore possibilities, emotions, and scenarios that reality alone cannot always provide.

This is especially relevant when it comes to personal fantasy and creative expression. A fictional scenario does not necessarily represent a literal desire to make something happen in the real world. People have always explored ideas, emotions, and situations through fiction that they would never pursue in reality. The value of fantasy is often
in the experience of imagining, not in replacing the real thing.

In the end, fantasy exists because humans are not only observers of reality, we are creators and explorers of possibilities. We imagine because the world is fascinating,
but also because it is incomplete. The ability to create something that does not exist
is not a rejection of reality, it is one of the things that makes us human.

It is ironic that some residents of Piddington, England, are asking Donald Trump for help, because they feel their government is imposing a major decision on their community without their consent. They seem to see him as a champion of local voices, but many Americans have felt the same frustration under Trump's policies.

In Dilley, Texas, residents faced the reality of a large federal immigration detention facility in their community and many were angry that such a major decision was made with little say from local people. In California, communities and local officials also pushed back against immigration detention expansions, arguing that Washington was forcing federal policies onto their neighborhoods while ignoring their concerns.

And the pattern goes beyond immigration. Across the United States, communities have pushed back against the rapid expansion of AI data centers, complaining about noise, pollution concerns, and higher utility bills. Many residents feel that powerful corporations and governments are making decisions first and asking communities to accept the consequences afterward.

So the irony is hard to miss: people who feel ignored by their own government are appealing to a leader whose own country has citizens making the same complaint, that their voices were not heard before major decisions affecting their lives were made.

Correlation is not causation!

The study appears to have been performed using a legitimate scientific method and is not simply an example of cherry-picking an unusual result. The researchers used a large dataset and an established statistical approach, so the finding is worth taking seriously as a possible observation.

However, there are still important questions before accepting it as a confirmed scientific conclusion. A single study, even a large one, can produce a result that does not appear in later research. A repeat of the analysis using an independent dataset would be needed to see whether the same correlation appears again. Replication is especially important for surprising findings.

Also, a correlation does not by itself prove the cause. Even if the association between earlier sexual initiation and shorter lifespan is confirmed, it does not mean that earlier sexual activity itself causes reduced longevity. The relationship could be explained by other factors that influence both.

Possible explanations include:
• Parenting style and upbringing: people raised with more caution, planning, and risk awareness may both delay sexual activity and make healthier long-term choices.
• Socioeconomic factors: childhood poverty, education level, and access to resources may influence both age of sexual initiation and later health.
• Family stability: supportive family environments may affect both personal choices and lifelong health outcomes.
• Personality traits: characteristics such as impulsivity, risk-taking, or self-control may influence both sexual timing and health behaviors.
• Puberty and biological development: earlier physical maturation may affect both sexual timing and later biological processes.
• Stress and childhood experiences: early adversity may influence both life choices and long-term health.
• Other genetic influences: the genetic factors associated with sexual timing may also affect personality, behavior, or health through unrelated pathways.

Therefore, the current study can reasonably be viewed as evidence of an interesting association, but more research is needed to determine whether the relationship is causal and what mechanism might explain it.

The World Cup crowd as Trump walks on the field
only registered users can see external links

First see him do ANYTHING positive successfully, then see if Democrats are whining.

This is why it requires 'a book' to tell you how wrong you are:



Two people may have different opinions about whether it is raining, but whether water droplets are actually falling from the sky is not decided by opinion.

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.


--------------------------------------- added after 218 hours

If you are working for any American company as employee, ask yourself what happens to your job, if you are absent for 38 days, without calling in sick officially.

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.