Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#60
New Comment Rating: -4 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
It's another example of your administration just canceling important projects, and when pressed on out just say DEI, or waste, fraud and abuse, without ANY evidence. If he cannot present evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, HE'S LYING. They are just cutting everything that is important for people, and they don't give a fuck about who it is going to affect. If there was a good reason, he would be able to present it. If he thought there was a good reason, but he didn't know the details, he could say that and have someone provide the details. His behavior shows that HE KNOWS that their isn't a good reason.
When a project isn't executed correctly, the government cancels the contract with
the contractor, they don't cancel the budget for the project.
He is at a hearing, where he's supposed to take responsibility for his actions, as the leader of a government agency, towards congress. That's the democratic process,
and he's making a mockery of it, which should be reason for his immediate resignation.
the waste water portion of the grant, um, that portion of the money is probably the best spent of all of it.
if it is such a poor town, the mothers are probably at home to care for the kids, so no daycare is needed. the health center, is that a place for people to go in and do jumping jacks like a gym or a place to get dr's care? there is probably already a drs office in the town, so again, not needed.
He is obligated by law to take responsibility for his actions.
You didn't listen, the county school gym is rebuilt to a health clinic.
There is public funding for projects like that, which are democratically implemented.
"While they are private, daycare providers are subject to state regulations and licensing. Also, some public funding mechanisms support access to daycare:
Subsidies for low-income families (e.g., through the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG)
Head Start and Early Head Start (federally funded programs, but not the same as typical private daycare)"
When the funding for those projects is democratically signed off on, you can only democratically end it, not let a billionaire hack into the government finances and
cancel contracts.
It's not up to Elon Musk, or Hon Zelding, or you, to decide what's needed or not,
this was decided by A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, and Elon Musk STOLE IT.
In poor areas, mothers have to work, because they cannot feed their kids on one income. In a lot of cases, both parents work multiple jobs, to keep their heads above water. Since private day care is ridiculously expensive, it's a great return on investment when the government funds public daycare.
Only rich people can survive on one income these days. Didn't you know that?
How wealthy do your billionaires need to be, before they finally fund those things?
Isn't that what you think is the ideal system? When does it start working then?
Why do you think people are protesting oligarchy?
Because they are fed up with billionaires deciding that one drs office in a town,
that's suffering high levels of leukemia and pneumonia, from air pollution, is good enough for them, but NOTHING is EVER good enough for those billionaires.
only registered users can see external links
in a horrible concentration camp, in a dictatorship, without due process.
The fact that you think that's justified just stuns liberals.
would even be considered by Democrats.
They actually respect The Constitution and Amendments, YOU DON'T.
Trump wants to take away the right/responsibility of judges, even state and Supreme Court justices, to rule that a federal law, regulation, or policy is unconstitutional or unlawful.
That means that the courts cannot order to halts the enforcement of an unconstitutional or unlawful federal law, regulation, or policy, with the goal of preventing widespread harm, while the legal proceedings continue, which could take years.
Trump's policy is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It would strip the Judicial Branch of most of its ability to prevent the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of enacting unconstitutional or unlawful federal laws, regulations, or policies.
It's also highly unpractical. It means that it would "require individuals to file separate lawsuits in different jurisdictions to contest federal actions, potentially leading to inconsistent legal outcomes and delayed relief." Basically, it would flood the legal system with lawsuits.
trying to stop the missuse of birth right citizenship for example, if you let judges stop it until everything goes thru the courts,appeals and etc,people could be born and then dead and gone before it is determined it was not legal.
that is excessive harm to the country when babies are spat out of illegal women like watermelon seeds and as long as they fall out on us soil, they are suddenly citizens is not what the law was meant to do. it was meant to make sure that babies born to us citizens were automatically citizens without having to go thru the process.
When a 6/3 conservative Supreme Court says that Trump's law is unconstitutional,
than it's an absolute no-brainer.
If there is a "misuse of birth right citizenship", then solve it LEGALLY.
There is no doubt what the constitution says; if you're born in the US, you're an American.
100% undeniable:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If you want to change that, get your TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY IN CONGRESS!!!
Here's a little tip for president Trump:
only registered users can see external links
Find out what he means by it.
It probably has more bugs in the Amazon rainforest and it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in security and communication upgrades.
Donald Trump just got bought… again.
what bugs me is Trump has his own plane. other than defenses, it is nicer than air farce 1. so he could use it with secret service pilots looks to me like.
The one delivered directly from Boeing will not have any listening devices or espionage related devices on board.
Air Force One is not just a luxury airline, it has far superior security, weapons and communication systems. It also has a fully operational operating room.
The plane from Qatar would have to be stripped down to nothing and redone to suit the security needs of the president of the United States.
see a corruption issue in it. Why can't you acknowledge that?
Do you like that corruption or do you want to see it reduced?
How did Elon prove that? By literally buying people's votes?
Which Democrat ever sold Chinese watches for $100,000 per piece, so billionaires and foreign leaders can easily bribe him, by buying a couple or a crate of watches from him.
Which Democrat ever created an NFT and other crypto scams, so people can send him unlimited amounts of untraceable money, and show him the receipts, when they visit him in Mar-a-Lago, during in-transparent meetings?
Which Democrat have ever asked someone how many of their ETF's they have bought from them, when they are applying for a job?
Which Democrat has ever accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar?
Which Democrat has multiple golf clubs, where billionaires and foreign leaders
pay $700,000/year?
Which Democrat asked the Supreme Court to make them immune from the law?
to make yourself believe that the Democrats are more corrupt.
Giving Trump a pass, is DEFINITELY NOT going to reduce corruption.
Who do you want him to work for, YOU or whoever gives him MONEY?
What if the EU gives Trump a $500 million, to keep sending Ukraine weapons?
If you agree with that open corruption, we can do that....
Do you think that's how politics should work?
Or ask his loyal staffers, who are angry about it. They might know.
You don't ask what Burisma got from Biden, while you couldn't even prove
he got one cent from them. Hunter's job was all you needed to say: "CORRUPTION!". However, Joe Biden didn't even have a position of power
back then, that he could use to 'reward' Burisma.
It's not that there are no options for Qatar to 'reward' Trump for their 'present',
it is that there are TOO MANY, to point it down.
One article points to " intricate nexus of business deals that Eric Trump is creating at lightning speed through the Gulf region. The first foreign deal secured by the Trump Organization since Trump’s return to the Oval Office in January is in Qatar."
"The deal is for the construction of a luxury resort and 18-hole golf course outside the Qatari capital, Doha. It will be known as the Trump International Golf Club & Villas. That would appear to be a breach of Trump’s second-term promise – already so much weaker than the ethical pledges he made in Trump presidency 1.0 – that the family business would pursue no deals involving foreign governments."
"Were that not enough, there’s also the crypto factor. Trump’s venture into the crypto currency business is another whole can of worms, with so many ethical conundrums attached to it that it would keep a conflict of interest investigator busy for years.
Where are the Trump family’s biggest crypto deals located? In the GULF STATES."
"A fund run by the royal family of UAE recently invested $2bn in a crypto exchange. The fund channeled the money through a new cryptocurrency known as stablecoin that tracks the US dollar.
The stablecoin was issued by a cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial.
It is owned by the Trump family.
The front page of World Liberty Financial’s website invites visitors to “meet our team, the passionate minds shaping the future of finance”. Under a beaming photograph of the 47th president are the words: “Donald J Trump, chief crypto advocate”."
MORE CHANCES FOR QUID PRO QUO THAN I'VE EVER SEEN!
THERE WAS JUST NOTHING THERE!!!!
Now you have the most corrupt president in American history,
but you completely refuse to see it, because he's your guy.
hum, qatar had agreed to buy 200 or so boeing planes. supporting US jobs. um, that free airplane is not such a bad thing after all.
Agreements signed by President Donald Trump and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani on Wednesday will "generate an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion,"
"How corrupt is the American government and what is the cause for it?"
Then ask Grok this:
"Which US president is most corrupt, Joe Biden or Donald J. Trump?"
Phart said: "I feel like we are weak as a nation and as a world because instead of helping the next door neighbor,and they help theirs and it be a large circle that comes back around. we fly over, drive past , float past our neighors to help someone way away. which allows our home countries to suffer.
help the person next to you, they can then help their neighbor. the idea would work, just give it a chance"
ABOUT THAT LAST SENTENCE:
You're literally describing what my Socialist Party is doing.
And what do you want to achieve that way? What do you have a government for?
You want to make the government to be as SMALL as possible, right?
And then do what the government did before, by helping each other?
WHY?
WHY not organize that?
The result is; the exact type of socialism that my party is fighting for.
A bottom up, grass roots, fully democratic, people cooperation, AKA SOCIALISM.
Think about it, how do you plan to do that "helping each other" method with 330 million people? Are you all going to sit in a great hall, discussing who needs to help who? Or, are you going to pick a few people who organize things? How do you pick those people? WHO picks those people? Are you going to vote for them?
Does this sound like a structure you might recognize? It's going to look a lot like a democratically elected government, isn't it? How will you prevent that some people favor their friends at the detriment of other people? As soon as your "helping each other" method gets big enough to mean a damn, you're running into the same problems as before.
What are you going to do then? Pick another billionaire narcissist leader, who doesn't
give a crap about helping anyone? You're back where you started.
The government was a result of tribes getting larger. Your people helping people method is only feasible with at maximum 200 people. As soon as civilization created bigger tribes, they started creating governments. Civilization has tried almost every form of government that is possible. The form that respects its people the most is democracy. It's not as efficient as an autocracy, but it is more sustainable, because most people don't like to be ruled over or horribly murdered when they don't agree with the people who are running it. That's why I support democracy. However, when the government gives away all the power to a few wealthy people, it's not a democracy anymore. That's what's happened in the US. You're solution is to turn it into an autocracy, my solution is the exact opposite. Ownership = power, so I want to eliminate the system where ownership, that we all depend on, is in the hands of the few. It should be publicly owned and democratically controlled. That's not easy to achieve, but that's the goal of socialism.
why do you need a government to give your neighbor next door a few tomatoes to feed his family?
why would he then need a government to come over and help cut a storm damaged tree from your house>?
the Amish have seem to have a a good idea. neighbors barn burns down, the whole hood is there the next day with hammers and lumber to rebuild. no government .they do share a common religion. something you hate.
that is why church and state have to be separate though, both operate as 'government' in a sense.
lets see, i ask Grok, a great asset to society that i hope grows and prospers.
"does helping your neighbor require a government"
No, helping your neighbor doesn’t require a government. It’s a voluntary act rooted in human connection—sharing resources, lending a hand, or just being kind. Governments can facilitate community support through policies or programs, but they’re not essential for neighborly help. In fact, overreliance on government can sometimes crowd out personal initiative. Historically, mutual aid societies and local networks thrived without state intervention, like during the Great Depression when communities self-organized. That said, some argue government safety nets ensure help reaches those without strong personal networks, but that’s a separate question from whether it’s required. It’s not.
wow what a concept. independent thinking, independent of government.
as an individual.
Do you think that "giving your neighbor next door a few tomatoes to feed his family",
is the solution for what you called "we are weak as a nation and as a world"?
You are referring to small things like "come over and help cut a storm damaged tree
from your house". How did civilization fix that problem? INSURANCE!
We all set aside some money, for the unlucky person who needs it. Right?
You can do that in your neighborhood, in your city or your state, or your country.
Instead, you turned it into a business. Why? How is that "helping each other"?
How are you going to help someone who has cancer? Why do you let them care
for themselves? What's the difference with the tree on their roof?
Of course helping your neighbor doesn't require a government.
Now ask Grok if a system where we all help each other is a working alternative
for a government. I'm interested in the result.
our house insurance is over 1600 a year and we have never in 54 years filed a claim. i checked about another company and getting it cheaper, ha other companys quoted 3000 or more per year.
much cheaper for neighbors to help each other.
It would be cheaper if your neighbors would help you, but you can't rely on it. It's dependent on you having neighbors that CAN help you, even if they wanted to help you. What happens if the whole block burns down in a big fire? Are the neighbors from the next block coming to help? Do they have the money and time to help all those people rebuild your block of houses? It doesn't work.
Here's my alternative: the whole country just pays into a system that helps people, when a tree falls on their house or their house burns down. No profit, no complicated system to get your damage repaired or your house rebuilt, just one guy comes to look at the damage and signs off on what is needed. The order is picked up by a licensed contractor in the neighborhood and the job is done, by licensed workers. We have some independent specialists checking that the job is done well, for an honest price. There is no one who doesn't contribute to this direct system making billions of profit.
It cheap, efficient and you're not dependent on the charity of neighbors.
kinda long.
is a system where we all help each other is a working alternative
for a government.
A system where everyone helps each other, often called mutual aid or cooperative governance, can function as an alternative to traditional government in some contexts, but its viability depends on scale, coordination, and human nature. Small, tight-knit communities—like early human tribes, some intentional communes, or disaster-response networks—have successfully used mutual aid to meet needs without centralized authority. Examples include the Amish, who rely on community support for welfare, or post-disaster volunteer networks that distribute resources faster than bureaucracies.
However, scaling mutual aid to replace government entirely faces challenges. Governments provide standardized systems—laws, infrastructure, defense, and public services—that require consistent coordination across millions. Mutual aid often struggles with free-riders (people who take without giving), conflict resolution, and ensuring equitable resource distribution. Historical attempts, like some anarchist communes, often dissolved due to internal disputes or external pressures. Data from the World Bank shows that even in high-trust societies, centralized systems outperform purely cooperative ones in delivering complex services like healthcare or education at scale.
A hybrid could work: mutual aid for local, immediate needs (e.g., food banks, community childcare) paired with minimal government for large-scale functions (e.g., roads, defense). Blockchain-based systems or DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are modern experiments in this,aiming to codify cooperation without centralized control, but they’re still nascent and face governance issues.
It’s a spectrum—mutual aid can replace some government functions, especially in high-trust or crisis scenarios, but fully replacing government requires solving coordination and scalability problems that humans haven’t yet cracked. What do you think—could tech or cultural shifts make this more feasible?
Q: "is a system of helping each other a viable alternative for a government"
A: "A system of helping each other—often referred to as mutual aid, voluntaryism, or communal self-governance—can provide some of the functions of government, but whether it's a viable alternative to a government entirely depends on the scale, complexity, and goals of the society.
Here's a breakdown:
✅ Where "helping each other" can work well:
Small-scale communities:
In villages, intentional communities, or tribes, mutual aid and consensus-based decision-making often work effectively.
Examples: Indigenous governance systems, kibbutzim in Israel, or some anarchist communes.
Disaster relief or crisis situations:
Grassroots mutual aid often outperforms slow bureaucratic responses (e.g., during Hurricane Katrina or COVID-19).
Non-hierarchical societies:
Communities committed to shared values (e.g., equality, cooperation, sustainability) can sustain systems without a formal government.
❌ Where it struggles as a full replacement:
Large-scale coordination:
Infrastructure (roads, utilities, defense) requires long-term planning, resource pooling, and enforcement—hard to do through informal cooperation.
Inequality and free riders:
Without formal enforcement, people may take advantage of the system or avoid contributing, which undermines stability.
Dispute resolution and justice:
Governments typically offer courts and legal systems. Voluntary systems may lack consistent, fair enforcement.
Security and defense:
Organizing collective defense or policing without coercion or hierarchy is extremely difficult at scale.
🧠 Viable in theory, but in practice…
Philosophies like anarchism, libertarian socialism, and communitarianism envision societies run entirely on mutual aid and voluntary cooperation.
Real-world attempts (e.g., Rojava in Syria, Zapatista territories in Mexico, 1930s Catalonia) show both the promise and limits of these models.
🔄 Hybrid models may be more realistic
Many governments already rely partly on civil society and mutual aid:
Volunteer fire departments
Food banks
Local co-ops
These systems complement, rather than replace, formal government.
Summary:
Viable in small, aligned communities or as a complementary system.
Challenging to scale as a complete replacement for government functions in large, diverse, modern societies.
Would you like to explore historical examples or philosophical frameworks behind this idea?"
=================================================================
So, it can work for "Small-scale communities".
That's the 200 people that I was talking about.
Are you going to divide up the country in small-scale communities?
What are you going to do when a hurricane flattens your whole community?
Is another community going to help you? Why? How?
If you have a poor community, will you move to a rich community?
Is there trade happening between those communities?
IT DOESN'T WORK!
A government is a collection of communities that is organized to share risks
and resources. It solves all the problems that a collection of communities causes.
you try to insert government and by the 3rd generation you would have a corrupt mess with only the governments housing being nice and the others being junk,kinda like now in alot of countries>
there is no reason for governments to corrupt, when people are vigilant.
Tribes cannot be larger than around 200 people, because that our biological ability to see people as family and extended family.
Then we have a hard time feeling solidarity to one-another, which is what your system needs to want to help your "neighbor".
It's not my principle to have a big powerful government that does everything for everyone, I have a principle of SOLIDARITY. That's the starting point. Why? Because when we have solidarity with each other, it ends or reduces almost every problem of humanity. You don't go to war with people that you think of as your "tribe", you only go to war with other "tribes". It's impossible to change the human nature that limits our feeling of who belongs to our "tribe", so the goal is to extend our tribe through REPRESENTATION. Communities vote on representatives, who share our values and represent our ideals and interests. That's on a local level, the size of at maximum a city. The local communities and their representatives come together regularly and discuss their ideas, and the representative communicates what's happening in the local government and takes responsibility. That's not like your town halls, that I've seen where the "representatives" talk down to their electorate. Recently they fear even coming there, because they are not doing what their constituents have voted them in for. In any case it's a system of several steps, from city, to province, to region, to country. The representatives from the different levels all come together regularly, in the same way that the citizens come together with their direct representative. It communicates up and down (vertical) and between the same levels (horizontal). At every level, there is a maximum of people who can just about have that "tribe" feeling together, from the city level, to the country level, because of that level approach. Very important is that every representative only has the job, as long as they have the support of their "tribe", and gets replaced at a vote's notice. That's the democratic system of government that my party has designed, and it is much different than any other party. There are also gatherings that skip levels, I'm going to a region conference on Saturday, which is for all local representatives and volunteers (just interested citizens) from the municipalities. That's where we meet each other, to get that "tribe" feeling with other provinces. That's how you organize solidarity, between people who normally wouldn't feel solidarity to each other.
Again, we didn't start with an idea of a government, we started with a goal. Many decades of philosophizing, scientific research and discussion has resulted in the policies and organization that the party now conveys. The discussions never stop, we go back to the bare basics every other year and the party program is discussed every year. Every member can propose any change. When they present their reason, the change can be voted in. My local board has changed one detail that we discussed.
I have a plan for something I want to change, next time.
Now you tell me how you want to achieve something for a whole country, when you get your helping neighbors system.
Prove him wrong, without personal attacks.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Julie Sweeney, a 53-year-old woman, was sentenced to 15 months in prison for posting an offensive and threatening message on a Facebook community group.
now leo, you should be able to see the slippery slope that precedent could lead into.
There is no law against criticizing Israel, but there are laws against directly threatening specific people with violence or death.
It's not just the UK where threatening other people with bodily harm or death
is illegal, it is illegal in the US too.
Every state in the U.S. has laws that prohibit threats of violence between citizens. Many states use terms like:
- "Criminal threats"
- "Terroristic threats"
- "Menacing"
- "Assault" (in some states, words alone can constitute assault)
These laws generally prohibit:
- Threatening to cause bodily harm or death
- Doing so in a way that puts the victim in reasonable fear
- Often requiring that the threat be intentional and specific
Who are you referring to, when you say "the brits put people in jail over facebook post"?
If it's the case that leopoldij is talking about, incitement is not protected free speech.
Is Hasan Piker accused of incitement, or are they just intimidating him, because he is criticizing Trump, which IS protected free speech?
New Comment Go to top