Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#95
New Comment Rating: -7 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
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.
you could stand to be a little more humble.
only registered users can see external links
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.
only registered users can see external links
Who can do better? I bet you can't, without making up shit.
only registered users can see external links
Victoria Hearst on Trauma, Politics, and Texas
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you see a classless, stateless society, based on common ownership,
on that 'communist side'?
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.
What is to stop it from progressing past the "ideal " stage of socialism?
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.
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.”.
I don't want to hear you about this.
Very few people have common sense.
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.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Good point, although somewhat crudely communicated.
Lots of petty men said that women are too emotional,
and that's why they couldn't vote for Kamala Harris.
Trump has about 10 temper tantrums per day, 100 if you count his nightly tweets.
I've never seen Kamala Harris be that emotional, even once.
He doesn't care about you or anyone, but himself.
only registered users can see external links
Hes not MUSLIM!
There are more Americans every day arguing that being gay should be illegal.
Maybe not slavery, but techno-feudalism isn't much fun either.
The manosphere considers women subservient to men.
They think that serving their husband is their only right.
Trump himself couldn't care less. He was pro-abortion for his whole life, until he needed the votes of the Christian fundamentalists.
"He's not Muslim" is a very low bar for a country that shouts FREEDOM from the rooftops.
By the way, there are lots of Muslims who care about freedom more than you.
That's why they protest their horrible regimes at the risk of death.
I don't see you fight for your freedoms like that.
What's the difference?
only registered users can see external links
Don't agree? Argue why he's wrong.
The only hope is that there's enough room to accommodate some of the electorate's wishes.
to win an election, they might promise to do something for you, but as soon as they try, they get a phone call from their wealthy donor saying:
"Who the hell do you think you are working for?"
If their career only depends on your vote, their "what's in it for me" question
is the same as "what's in it for my voters". Of course, you also need to end their ability
to trade in individual stocks and end the 'revolving door'.
New Comment Go to top