US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

Excellent article

 

[Moxie]

We could obviously debate other points too, but this particular phrase ilustrates very well the difference in approach between right and left (and I mean the well intentioned fraction of left and right, which is bellow 0,1% in each case).

Well, if you completely cut off the supply chain, long enough, you do "cure" addiction (in the sense that you stop the growth of the addicted population, and again if you cut it long enough you force current addicteds out of their addiction) . I get your point though, which is that this way you don't tackle the underlying causes of addition, which is obvisouly true.

So, I agree that cutting of the supply chain is not a complete solution, but at the very least is part of the solution (how big a part is debatable). On the other hand, it is also incomplete, or at the very least extremely optimistic, to assume that you can magicaly "solve" the root causes for addiction. Yes, you can address a lot of issues, but easyness of access will always be a factor. If people only need to raise their hand to get a fix, there is no way in hell you will be able to control it. I mean, even in a society that drug use is legal, there must be some "price" for the users to pay.

I do take your point that if you could dry up the supply chain, you could force some people into recovery. I also agree that that doesn't cure the underlying addiction problem, and you still need to care for these people. Also importantly, some have co-occuring mental health issues. Some, which they had before, which lead them to street drugs, in the first place, and some because long-term (and even short-term) drug use can lead to long-term mental health issues.

That said, let's use some real world examples of cutting off the supply chain, or making drugs more expensive because of scarcity:

* When Oxycodone came on the market, it was cheap and easy to get. When it started to become clear that Oxi was not the "addiction-free answer to pain" that was being pushed, and that there were doctors who essentially ran "pill-mills," the supply got drastically cut. So addicts turned to heroin. Cheaper, and more readily available.

* When Fentanyl entered the market, some of it was hidden in other drugs, and led to many OD deaths, due to the strength of it. But some developed a taste for it. And again...pretty cheap.

* China has also been shipping "research chemicals" to the US, which for some time were legal. These could mimic the effects of cocaine and of heroin. Every time the DEA caught onto a formula and banned it, the Chinese changed the formula slightly, making it still technically legal. Last I read, these drugs are still getting shipped to US suppliers.

* Methadone is a good option for opioid users, but they also sell their "take-homes" to street drug users, and find other drugs.

* Suboxone is supposed to quell drug cravings, and should best be used and dispensed by a doctor/psychiatrist, but it can also be abused and sold.

In my experience, and I wish I didn't know this, addicts will find a way. The only answer is to spend real money on heath, addiction and psychiatric care to help with the disease. Or also to manage the disease in the incurables via methadone and suboxone. But you have to pay for the care. Many can't afford it. And when they can't, they go off of it, or sell it. Drug addiction is as cruel a disease as ALS or Alzheimer's, in terms of long-term impact on the sufferer and on the family. It should be treated as such.

If the Trump Administration were serious about cutting of the supply of Fentanyl, then they'd go after the source, which is NOT Venezuela, which I think we all know by now. They should seriously partner with Mexico and China in that effort. It would help if there weren't so much fentanyl available here.

But they also have to deal with the addiction problem, and also the root causes of hopelessness in small towns where there is no work. You need to create jobs, and also create jobs for drug offenders who have trouble finding work when they get out of prison, many with federal charges on their records. It's a complicated and multi-pronged problem. It will take a kinder and more empathetic administration than this one is to deal with it.

 

[mrzz]

I do take your point that if you could dry up the supply chain, you could force some people into recovery. I also agree that that doesn't cure the underlying addiction problem, and you still need to care for these people. Also importantly, some have co-occuring mental health issues. Some, which they had before, which lead them to street drugs, in the first place, and some because long-term (and even short-term) drug use can lead to long-term mental health issues.

That said, let's use some real world examples of cutting off the supply chain, or making drugs more expensive because of scarcity:

* When Oxycodone came on the market, it was cheap and easy to get. When it started to become clear that Oxi was not the "addiction-free answer to pain" that was being pushed, and that there were doctors who essentially ran "pill-mills," the supply got drastically cut. So addicts turned to heroin. Cheaper, and more readily available.

* When Fentanyl entered the market, some of it was hidden in other drugs, and led to many OD deaths, due to the strength of it. But some developed a taste for it. And again...pretty cheap.

* China has also been shipping "research chemicals" to the US, which for some time were legal. These could mimic the effects of cocaine and of heroin. Every time the DEA caught onto a formula and banned it, the Chinese changed the formula slightly, making it still technically legal. Last I read, these drugs are still getting shipped to US suppliers.

* Methadone is a good option for opioid users, but they also sell their "take-homes" to street drug users, and find other drugs.

* Suboxone is supposed to quell drug cravings, and should best be used and dispensed by a doctor/psychiatrist, but it can also be abused and sold.

In my experience, and I wish I didn't know this, addicts will find a way. The only answer is to spend real money on heath, addiction and psychiatric care to help with the disease. Or also to manage the disease in the incurables via methadone and suboxone. But you have to pay for the care. Many can't afford it. And when they can't, they go off of it, or sell it. Drug addiction is as cruel a disease as ALS or Alzheimer's, in terms of long-term impact on the sufferer and on the family. It should be treated as such.

If the Trump Administration were serious about cutting of the supply of Fentanyl, then they'd go after the source, which is NOT Venezuela, which I think we all know by now. They should seriously partner with Mexico and China in that effort. It would help if there weren't so much fentanyl available here.

But they also have to deal with the addiction problem, and also the root causes of hopelessness in small towns where there is no work. You need to create jobs, and also create jobs for drug offenders who have trouble finding work when they get out of prison, many with federal charges on their records. It's a complicated and multi-pronged problem. It will take a kinder and more empathetic administration than this one is to deal with it.

I get your points, but, being picky, you are not really cutting the supply chain if you know that there are cheaper alternatives available.

I know that addicts will find a way. But here is the paradox, for exactly this reason spending money on health, addiction and psychiatric care is far from guaranteed as well.

The two approaches are incomplete, one focus on the demand, the other on the offer. As I am you sure you will agree, problem is that one creates the other. You need to act on both. Focusing on the offer (supply chain) does not touches the root causes, but it is quite cheaper, while focusing on the demand is arguably impossible, and quite far from consensual (ask 100 experts, get 101 different answers).

Just to illustrate how hard that problem is, let me share a few lines about an (in)famous place in São Paulo, "cracolândia" (crack-o-land). The name says it all.

In its heyday, it was the real word proof of the failure of the harm reduction approach to drug abuse. In a few blocks São Paulo's old center, there was tolerance for consumption and commerce of crack. Police would stay away, "normal" people as well. The city, for a while, even had programs where drug addicts would be payed to live nearby (in small, cheap and decadents hotels), and supposedly work (I guess the idea was to keep the surroundings clean). It was the orthodox harm reduction approach.

It failed monumentally. "Cracolândia" grew to a surreal scale. Seeing it up close was a life changing experience. Actually, you did not even need to see it, you could smell it from a few blocks away. It became part of Brazilian culture, people from there were called zombies. Believe me, they fit perfectly the description.

The problem was never actually solved. New administrations with different political orientations "cleaned" the area , which simply spread the problem around.

Now comes the part that is closer to the core of our discussion: when the new administration came with this heavy handed approach, a lot of non governmental institutions tried to intervene: they (sensibly) pointed out that before kicking people out, they should at least offer treatment, etc and etc. Of course, this is an extreme situation that should have never got that point, but only a very small group of people agreed to treatment, and as far as I know most of the ones who agreed didn't adhere to it, returning to the streets in a matter of weeks. Now we have a lot of small cracolândias around São Paulo, similar to what reportedly happens in the west coast of the US. I do not know about the US, but what happens in São Paulo I have seen with my eyes (and smelled with my nose).

I know that this is not a direct reply to your argument, and that the idea is to never let the situation get that bad in the first place. But, as you said, addicts find a way. They will play the system, and find holes in any well intentioned programs you throw at them. It is never pretty.

 

[Federberg]

This new Minnesota shooting by ICE, of the nurse... I don't know how this one can be spun to defend what looks like a street execution. Am I watching real life or American Gangster ffs...

Again.. I repeat... people by now should know these guys feel like they can act with impunity. What are you doing people? Stay away from this... That doesn't justify extra-judicial killings though. Miss me with that

 

[Federberg]

 

[Moxie]

I get your points, but, being picky, you are not really cutting the supply chain if you know that there are cheaper alternatives available.

My point is that there are so many options available, between illegal and legal, (and legal drugs get sold illegally, all the time, though less so than in the old Oxy days.) I doubt you CAN completely cut the supply. It might be a noble effort, if the Administration had a vision for it, but I don't see that they do.

I know that addicts will find a way. But here is the paradox, for exactly this reason spending money on health, addiction and psychiatric care is far from guaranteed as well.

Yes, far from guaranteed for every addict, but if you treat addiction as a disease, and put health care efforts into it, you have a much better chance of saving some.

The two approaches are incomplete, one focus on the demand, the other on the offer. As I am you sure you will agree, problem is that one creates the other. You need to act on both. Focusing on the offer (supply chain) does not touches the root causes, but it is quite cheaper, while focusing on the demand is arguably impossible, and quite far from consensual (ask 100 experts, get 101 different answers).

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this. I don't know that focusing on supply is cheap. Notice that Trump's approach is using the US military, which is pretty expensive. I don't think the alternative is focusing on demand, but focusing on root causes, and cheaper treatment option. Which is also expensive, if the state chips in. We're talking about people who basically can't pay for their own treatment, in a country where healthcare is expensive, and in an political climate that is making it worse.

Just to illustrate how hard that problem is, let me share a few lines about an (in)famous place in São Paulo, "cracolândia" (crack-o-land). The name says it all.

In its heyday, it was the real word proof of the failure of the harm reduction approach to drug abuse. In a few blocks São Paulo's old center, there was tolerance for consumption and commerce of crack. Police would stay away, "normal" people as well. The city, for a while, even had programs where drug addicts would be payed to live nearby (in small, cheap and decadents hotels), and supposedly work (I guess the idea was to keep the surroundings clean). It was the orthodox harm reduction approach.

It failed monumentally. "Cracolândia" grew to a surreal scale. Seeing it up close was a life changing experience. Actually, you did not even need to see it, you could smell it from a few blocks away. It became part of Brazilian culture, people from there were called zombies. Believe me, they fit perfectly the description.

The problem was never actually solved. New administrations with different political orientations "cleaned" the area , which simply spread the problem around.

Now comes the part that is closer to the core of our discussion: when the new administration came with this heavy handed approach, a lot of non governmental institutions tried to intervene: they (sensibly) pointed out that before kicking people out, they should at least offer treatment, etc and etc. Of course, this is an extreme situation that should have never got that point, but only a very small group of people agreed to treatment, and as far as I know most of the ones who agreed didn't adhere to it, returning to the streets in a matter of weeks. Now we have a lot of small cracolândias around São Paulo, similar to what reportedly happens in the west coast of the US. I do not know about the US, but what happens in São Paulo I have seen with my eyes (and smelled with my nose).

I know that this is not a direct reply to your argument, and that the idea is to never let the situation get that bad in the first place. But, as you said, addicts find a way. They will play the system, and find holes in any well intentioned programs you throw at them. It is never pretty.

Clearly, the approach in Brazil was a terrible idea, and handled poorly. We don't have an equivalent here in the US.

I still say that if the US government, Trump led, wants to cure the drug problem, they need a much more comprehensive program, externally and internally. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to blow shit up. Which Trump really likes.

 

[mrzz]

My point is that there are so many options available, between illegal and legal, (and legal drugs get sold illegally, all the time, though less so than in the old Oxy days.) I doubt you CAN completely cut the supply. It might be a noble effort, if the Administration had a vision for it, but I don't see that they do.

Yes, far from guaranteed for every addict, but if you treat addiction as a disease, and put health care efforts into it, you have a much better chance of saving some.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this. I don't know that focusing on supply is cheap. Notice that Trump's approach is using the US military, which is pretty expensive. I don't think the alternative is focusing on demand, but focusing on root causes, and cheaper treatment option. Which is also expensive, if the state chips in. We're talking about people who basically can't pay for their own treatment, in a country where healthcare is expensive, and in an political climate that is making it worse.

Clearly, the approach in Brazil was a terrible idea, and handled poorly. We don't have an equivalent here in the US.

I still say that if the US government, Trump led, wants to cure the drug problem, they need a much more comprehensive program, externally and internally. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to blow shit up. Which Trump really likes.

Oh, before we go on, I have zero doubt that Trump has no clue on how to deal with this. It is simply too complicated for him. I am just debating the idea of cutting the supply chain. Don't read any of my arguments as a defense of Trump's actions (conversely, we should not dismiss anything just because Trump did it).

 

[Moxie]

This new Minnesota shooting by ICE, of the nurse... I don't know how this one can be spun to defend what looks like a street execution. Am I watching real life or American Gangster ffs...

Again.. I repeat... people by now should know these guys feel like they can act with impunity. What are you doing people? Stay away from this... That doesn't justify extra-judicial killings though. Miss me with that

The video you posted above is horrifying. It DOES look like an execution.

I know what you're saying that wisdom says stay away, but our rights to protest exist. The fight between Minnesota and the Federal Government has gone mad.

I was listening to a piece about how Trump has wanted to increase the ICE forces, and so has been cutting corners. They don't have the same background checks. Takes too much time. They don't train them for the usual 4 months, with then training time in the field. The usual would be a thorough background check, then some 5 months, with field training Now, just 13 weeks training, and that's it. And curtailed background checks. Little to nothing. They have been trying to get people from police departments, etc., hoping that would shorten the training needs.. And they have been offered signing bonuses. I'm trying to think of other government workers who get signing bonuses?

The Trump people say that that nurse had a gun. The NYTimes says he had a cellphone in his hand. He stood in between a woman who was being pepper sprayed, and the ICE agents who were assaulting her. Once again, we have competing narratives. I'm going to guess that the Feds will insist on controlling the investigation into this.

 

[mrzz]

I don't know that focusing on supply is cheap.

Cheap and expensive are often relative terms, and in this case what I mean is that it is way cheaper than the alternative. If you compare the man/hours and infrastructure that you need to destroy, say, a ton of drugs, and the man/hours and infrastructure that you need to treat the number of people that would become addicts because of that same ton of drugs (even if you consider that just a fraction of that ton would go to the new addicts, and you simply disregard the rest), the difference is huge. Of course I do not know the exact number, but I would guess at the very very last least a 100 to 1 ratio. But, as we were debating before, there is much more to the discussion than this.

 

[Moxie]

Cheap and expensive are often relative terms, and in this case what I mean is that it is way cheaper than the alternative. If you compare the man/hours and infrastructure that you need to destroy, say, a ton of drugs, and the man/hours and infrastructure that you need to treat the number of people that would become addicts because of that same ton of drugs (even if you consider that just a fraction of that ton would go to the new addicts, and you simply disregard the rest), the difference is huge. Of course I do not know the exact number, but I would guess at the very very last least a 100 to 1 ratio. But, as we were debating before, there is much more to the discussion than this.

I also think we've pretty much talked this one out, but, in human terms, treating the addicts you have, while expensive, is imperitive. Addiction is a disease, and we have many in the US with this disease. It's not simply a cost issue, but I still maintain you'll never cut off a supply completely. There are many legal drugs that get misused, and people, including doctors, who are willing to allow them to get sold illegally. It's not just about drugs that come from outside the US. If this administration were serious about tackling the addiction crisis, they would look at solutions for treating it, as well. But that's too expensive for Republicans, so it won't happen.

 

[Moxie]

The Department of Homeland Security is trying to take control of the investigation of the death of this nurse, Alex Pretti, in MN, even though a judge has demanded that they share evidence, and not destroy it. Sen. Tina Smith of MN is calling it an attempted cover-up, which I think it is.

 

[britbox]

Catherine Austin Fitts Interview.

Who is she? Catherine Austin Fitts is a former Wall Street investment banker and government official who now publishes financial analysis through her company Solari. I've taken an interest in a lot of what she's had to say over the last few years. This is really for people who are wedded to the corrupt system overseeing them and think there is a political solution by voting for the "other side". Two wings of the same bird



Leo AI Summary:

The Financial Coup & Missing Money​

• $21 trillion in undocumentable adjustments from government accounts (pre-2015), with unknown additional amounts missing after 2015 when secrecy policies were adopted
• Equivalent to approximately $150,000 per American when including financial crisis loans and pandemic injections
• Violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution requiring Congressional approval and disclosure of all expenditures
• Money systematically moved from the "old system" to a "new system" while leaving citizens with liabilities

The "Going Direct" Reset​

• Approved by G7 bankers in August 2019 at Jackson Hole (before the pandemic)
• Involved $5 trillion direct injection into the economy
• The pandemic served dual purposes:
  • Enabled asset purchases at depressed prices
  • Shut down small businesses and farms to facilitate consolidation
  • Created 500+ new billionaires while 30-35% of US small businesses closed

The Control Grid Infrastructure​

Three essential components:

1. Digital ID - global interoperable identification system
2. Programmable money - CBDCs/stablecoins allowing transaction control
3. Hardware/software infrastructure - Starlink satellites, telecom towers, data centers, surveillance systems

Operation Warp Speed potentially aimed at creating an "internet of bodies" through injection ingredients

Central Banking Power Grab​

• 1913 Federal Reserve gave bankers control of monetary policy
• Current transition attempts to give bankers control of both monetary AND fiscal policy
• Eliminates need for Congress through financial transaction control
• Described as "taxation without representation" and a "slavery system"

Cryptocurrency Reality​

• Bitcoin is a prototype for programmable money, not a solution
• Designed to get young people and freedom fighters to develop slavery system technology unknowingly
• Serves intelligence agencies for quiet money transfers
• Cannot solve a governance problem with a financial product

Trump Administration Strategy​

• Shifting from "east-west" strategy (Russia/Ukraine) to "north-south" strategy
• Targeting Arctic Circle resources: Greenland, Alberta, Panama Canal, down to Antarctica
• Attempting to restore dollar resource-backing and self-sufficiency
• Completely dependent on Fed financing ($6 trillion expenses vs $4 trillion revenue)
• All factions (Trump, Carney globalists) committed to oligarchy and central control

Depopulation Agenda​

• US leadership "very deeply committed to depopulation"
• Pandemic injections estimated to have caused 500,000 to 1 million deaths in US
• 5 million disabled from injections
• Extraordinary rises in all-cause mortality and disability rates
• Destruction of family wealth, civic infrastructure, and church congregations

The Parasite Problem​

• Current system operates like a tapeworm extracting wealth
• Americans actively financing their own enslavement through:
  • Retirement accounts funding control grid companies
  • Embracing addictions (sugar, drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography)
  • $10 billion in carbonated drinks vs $2 billion in fruits/vegetables (example from independent grocers)

Solutions: "Coming Clean"​

• Delete the tapeworm from your life - examine how you spend time and money
• Stop financing companies building the control grid
• Build analog systems alongside digital (never go 100% digital)
• Practice the Golden Rule - requires spiritual and emotional maturity matching technological power
• Recognize 2-5% of population are psychopaths without empathy capacity
• Work at local, regional, and state levels to clean out corruption

The Fiat Currency Debate​

• Problem is not fiat currency itself but debt-basing, secrecy, and lawlessness
• Well-governed fiat currencies are historically most effective
• Gold standard would be disastrous now that central bankers have accumulated all the gold
• Would increase dependency on enemies who control gold supply

Reasons for Optimism​

• Extraordinary technology available if properly governed
• Beautiful planet with great resources
• Price of tyranny is astronomical - removing it would create unbelievable wealth
• Simulations show massive wealth possibilities if secrecy and tyrannical control ended
• "Heaven on earth" is possible if 8 billion people practice the Golden Rule

Presidential Constraints​

• President lacks information sovereignty and financial sovereignty
• Surrounded by armed personnel who may not work for him (reference to JFK assassination)
• Dependent on banker coalition for financing
• America described as "an auction" under current system

 

[britbox]

The most interesting thing about this thread if you pick it apart is that nobody really gives a f@@k.

They just pretend to.

A few examples:

People are talking about US War Crimes, Trampling on the Sovereignty of External Nations. They're only talking about it now because Trump's name is attached to it. The silence was deafening before.

People are talking about Epstein Island. Because Trump's name might now be associated with it. Before that... Shut up, it's a conspiracy theory.

People are suddenly concerned about the sovereignty of Ukraine's borders... yet they don't care too shits about their own borders. (Don't get me wrong - in a perfect world there wouldn't be any borders)

Making money in positions of influence is horrific when it's Trump, yet nobody bats an eyelid when Pelosi rakes in millions, or Biden's son. Nearly everybody in Congress and the Senate is raking it in, including People's champ "Bernie"

And to be clear this hypocrisy isn’t confined to one side. MAGA does exactly the same thing.

They spent years railing against corruption, elites, and "draining the swamp" until Trump started appointing Goldman Sachs bods, family members, donors, and loyalists to positions of power. Suddenly nepotism was fine and how the game is played.

Big Tech censorship came under the radar unless it's the right banning books and defining acceptable behaviour. Free speech only matters when it benefits them.

We need law and order - until Trump breaks the law.

Family values are where it's at until winning matters more than principle.

The pattern is the same on both sides. And both wings belong to the same bird. Are we looking at personal moral codes? or whatever our team is doing? Let's wave a silly fucking flag at a convention while a bunch of morons keep raking it in, Then again, who are really the morons? Time for some mirror gazing peeps.

 

[Federberg]

The most interesting thing about this thread if you pick it apart is that nobody really gives a f@@k.

They just pretend to.

A few examples:

People are talking about US War Crimes, Trampling on the Sovereignty of External Nations. They're only talking about it now because Trump's name is attached to it. The silence was deafening before.

People are talking about Epstein Island. Because Trump's name might now be associated with it. Before that... Shut up, it's a conspiracy theory.

People are suddenly concerned about the sovereignty of Ukraine's borders... yet they don't care too shits about their own borders. (Don't get me wrong - in a perfect world there wouldn't be any borders)

Making money in positions of influence is horrific when it's Trump, yet nobody bats an eyelid when Pelosi rakes in millions, or Biden's son. Nearly everybody in Congress and the Senate is raking it in, including People's champ "Bernie"

And to be clear this hypocrisy isn’t confined to one side. MAGA does exactly the same thing.

They spent years railing against corruption, elites, and "draining the swamp" until Trump started appointing Goldman Sachs bods, family members, donors, and loyalists to positions of power. Suddenly nepotism was fine and how the game is played.

Big Tech censorship came under the radar unless it's the right banning books and defining acceptable behaviour. Free speech only matters when it benefits them.

We need law and order - until Trump breaks the law.

Family values are where it's at until winning matters more than principle.

The pattern is the same on both sides. And both wings belong to the same bird. Are we looking at personal moral codes? or whatever our team is doing? Let's wave a silly fucking flag at a convention while a bunch of morons keep raking it in, Then again, who are really the morons? Time for some mirror gazing peeps.

I generally agree with this, I personally subscribe to staying consistent with my personal values so I’ll agree with both sides. I even agree with Trump often even though his motives and execution suck. Regarding corruption I think the focus on Pelosi has always been a joke. As you say lawmakers have been at it for years, all of them!

But let’s be clear, we haven’t seen anything like the Trump family corruption outside of the developing world…. EVER. Opening a Qatari bank account for Venezuelan oil?? Kushner pulling off billion dollar deals? Witkoff never even stepping in Ukraine? Common fella. There are levels to this!

And don’t get me started about Hillary’s email server! The current secretary of war has WhatsApp chat groups, and the reporting on that is not comparable to the noise around Hillary. I would say what Hegseth did was an order of magnitude worse, BEFORE active military operations!

And I haven’t even mentioned Kushners lack of security clearance and his freedom with his personal phone. Yes there’s bias about what people bitch about, but to my perception the Republicans do outrage better, because they tend to be outraged about more serious things. Dems whine about nasty things people say like whiny little girls

 

[britbox]

I don’t actually disagree with what you’re saying, and that's really the point.

BUT.. What you’re doing is ranking corruption by scale. I’m pointing at how standards get applied.

I’m not here to defend MAGA - Trump, Kushner, or anyone else. If you think their behaviour was way beyond anything we've seen before, then fair enough. My issue is that for a long time, none of this mattered to a lot of people until the pre-defined villain of the opposite side showed up.

When corruption is systemic, people ignore it. When corruption has a face they already hate, it becomes a moral emergency.

Same with emails, WhatsApp, classified docs handling, war powers, surveillance. The principle doesn't change, just the outrage based on the person it's applied to (i.e. Trump/Hillary or any of the other cast of characters).

The point is not "who is worse" or the levels you mention. It’s that posters suddenly discovered standards the moment it became convenient.

I was talking about Epstein Island on these boards years ago - nobody cared at all until there was a chance Trump might be associated with it.

People have complained about US Foreign Policy, War Crimes for many years... suddenly it matters...I literally burst out laughing when I read some posts - Where were these poeple asking questions years ago?

If we want to talk about levels, fine, but then those levels should apply all the time, not just when it helps one side. In fact, forget about levels - let's just talk about maintaining standards.

There is the broken window theory that if you don't clean up the mess early and "nip it in the bud" then you'e inviting more mess.

 

[Federberg]

I don’t actually disagree with what you’re saying, and that's really the point.

BUT.. What you’re doing is ranking corruption by scale. I’m pointing at how standards get applied.

I’m not here to defend MAGA - Trump, Kushner, or anyone else. If you think their behaviour was way beyond anything we've seen before, then fair enough. My issue is that for a long time, none of this mattered to a lot of people until the pre-defined villain of the opposite side showed up.

When corruption is systemic, people ignore it. When corruption has a face they already hate, it becomes a moral emergency.

Same with emails, WhatsApp, classified docs handling, war powers, surveillance. The principle doesn't change, just the outrage based on the person it's applied to (i.e. Trump/Hillary or any of the other cast of characters).

The point is not "who is worse" or the levels you mention. It’s that posters suddenly discovered standards the moment it became convenient.

I was talking about Epstein Island on these boards years ago - nobody cared at all until there was a chance Trump might be associated with it.

People have complained about US Foreign Policy, War Crimes for many years... suddenly it matters...I literally burst out laughing when I read some posts - Where were these poeple asking questions years ago?

If we want to talk about levels, fine, but then those levels should apply all the time, not just when it helps one side. In fact, forget about levels - let's just talk about maintaining standards.

There is the broken window theory that if you don't clean up the mess early and "nip it in the bud" then you'e inviting more mess.

That’s fair. The system is broken now, short of a really great President coming along, simultaneously with great bipartisan leadership in congress, I subscribe to the pessimism of entropy. There’s no going back

 

[britbox]

That’s fair. The system is broken now, short of a really great President coming along, simultaneously with great bipartisan leadership in congress, I subscribe to the pessimism of entropy. There’s no going back

I don't think it's going to happen at Presidential Level... the system is too far gone. it has to happen at Grass Roots Level. People need to work outside the system, regain personal sovereignty and share best practice.

I'm optimistic - there are groups of people doing great things. Government was (after all) for those who can't govern themselves.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think it's going to happen at Presidential Level... the system is too far gone. it has to happen at Grass Roots Level. People need to work outside the system, regain personal sovereignty and share best practice.

I'm optimistic - there are groups of people doing great things. Government was (after all) for those who can't govern themselves.

Do you have examples of these people?

 

[britbox]

Do you have examples of these people?

Oh, there are many - in health people are doing incredible things with frequency machines, German new medicine, expanded Chinese medicine etc... dealing with things at source and solving problems. Most of this stuff is banned by the way. Look up guys like Raymond Rife, Anthony Holland etc.

Look up Dr Sebi who was curing cancer, autoimmune diseases back in the 70s and 80s, won a huge case in court in New York and then got banged up for "financial irregularities" and died in prison. His solution was simple... Cancer cannot exist in an Alkaline environment, only an acidic one. People changing their diets got rid of cancers). He took over 70 witnesses into court and beat his Big Pharma adversaries. Did you know that it's actually embedded in law in most western nations that you have to treat cancer with radiotherapy or chemotherapy? Repeat... embedded in law. It's a massive industry worth trillions of dollars.

Here is Anthony Holland shattering Cancer Cells using Frequencies on a Ted Talk many years ago.. This video got pulled for years:



Then we have all the inventors who created free energy or overunity machines. Look up guys like Searle (UK). There are over 3,000 patents relating to energy that are banned for "national security reasons".

Lawks alive - just buy a Crooks Radiometer on Ebay and watch it go.

and when you dip into legal jusrisdictions - that's a serious game changer.

Be careful when you "look up" stuff. Best thing is to do experiments yourself.