Racism is dead to you, because you want to say racist things,
without those things being called racism.

You don't think that society should be based on merit.
You think society should be based on classism / inherited privileges.
When you think that the dumb, spoiled, useless brats of the wealthy deserve to get transferred the companies that their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents created, you DO NOT believe in merit.

Getting freebies, to vote for the side that represents them the best.
Is that exploitation? What definition of 'exploitation' is that?

There is one very important difference, Biden was supported by many competent, experienced lawmakers, diplomats and experts in their field, who he trusted and who could be trusted to do the right thing, if Biden was going to be crazy.
When Biden would order them to break the law, they would surely reject it.

Trump surrounds himself with completely unqualified, incompetent morons.
They better be loyal to Trump, no matter how stupid the things are that he wants them to do, and they never push back. Trump is ordering people to break the law, while threatening the death penalty if they refuse him. All of these people swore an oath to The Constitution and not to the president, but they are now following orders to break the law. It will require Neurenberg trials after this presidency.

Linus Torvalds Accidentally Slams Elon Musk
only registered users can see external links

"The average mechanic gross salary in Netherlands is €46.189 or an equivalent hourly rate of €22."
That's $53,918.27/year, $25.68/hour. Google can easily convert it for you.
Just ask "€22 in dollar" and it tells you.
There are of course many types of mechanic, at different levels of education.

At $53,918.27/year, the mechanic could get a mortgage between $215,656 and $269,570. There are still some houses in some areas of my country for sale at that price, but the house of my parents is 3 times the value.

only registered users can see external links

You couldn't leave it alone? Why don't you answer the other comment?

Generational wealth transfer is the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
People's kids WILL be poorer than them, because politics favors the wealthy.
You should want those kids to be ABLE to make a life for themselves.

My father bought his first apartment at age 25. How old does the current generation need to be, before their parents die and leave them some money, to finally be able
to buy a house?

Houses are scarce goods, they are either owned by the people who live in them
or they are owned by the wealthy who ask top dollar for them, to become more wealthy and buy up more houses. It's our generation that can still make a choice to have people own their own homes, and prevent that the wealthy own everything.

Remember your side being outraged about the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy"? This was a prediction made by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in a 2016, and your side is turning it into a reality. TAX THE RICH, or be happy owning NOTHING.

With "so be it", are you saying; "bad luck for tradespeople, they will be poor"?

You're still not addressing the fact that tradespeople could afford to buy a home and support a family on one income. More people are working than in that time, but people are less well off, even if couples are both working. That's just a fact.

This is not just bad for tradespeople, it's bad for the whole country.
Didn't you say that you wanted America to make stuff again?
To make stuff, you need people to want to be tradespeople,
instead of everyone picking educations to be managers and lawyers.

If you want America to split itself off from the rest of the world,
and you want to close the borders to trade, you need to create
a strong internal economy. You cannot do that with poor people.

America was at it's strongest when the middle class was booming
and you had high taxes on the wealthy, which paid for big investments.
Now your middle class is suffering and your country is losing its place
in the world. The ideas that you support are clearly the cause of this,
but you keep supporting those failed ideas. The US is crumbling.
There is nothing MAGA about it, when Trump is clearly destroying America.

Trump is clearly "winning" too much, and he IS destroying your country.

I'm not forgetting that at all. And stop straw-manning me. That's NOT my opinion.

Why is worked taxed so high and inheritance so low?
The answer is NOT "because the parents already paid their taxes".
We can fix that and tax working LESS and tax having lost of money MORE
and tax generational transfer of money MORE.

Why is EARNING money taxed so much more, than HAVING money
and just GETTING money that you haven't EARNED yourself?

Yes, but the kids didn't. Why is that fair?
You're only focusing on the parents, not on the kids.
Didn't I ask: "Could it be organized more fairly?"?

Why is it fair that some people don't have to work, because their parents are rich
and some people have almost no chances to make it, no matter how hard they work,
because their parents are poor? Is that fair?

Why is winning the birth lottery rewarded and working punished?

phart, lay off on this one, let quint answer.
You already answered for me, don't answer for him too.

If your parents leave you $1,000,000 of inheritance, you pay $0 in taxes in some states.
If you work for 10 years and make $1,000,000, you pay $300,000–$400,000 in taxes.
Who thinks it is fair to get taxed for working, but not for just getting it?
Could it be organized more fairly?

OMG Phart, you really are denying reality, if you don't see that Trump's heart could give out any second. His hands are severely bruised, likely from IV infusions, blood draws, or medical procedures. If it's not from that, than the only explanation is that medications that affect clotting (aspirin, blood thinners, anti-platelet drugs) are increasing his hands to bruise easily.

His ankles are swollen, which indicates severe Chronic Venous Insufficiency (CVI), the only thing that was officially disclosed.

There are several videos that show Trump being unable to walk in a straight line, and recently him struggling to walk at all. He is declining too, quite rapidly.

When Biden was in office, you were outraged about the lack of transparency about
his medical condition. I don't see you being concerned about that now. In fact, you swallow their obvious lies hook, line, and sinker.

Is it still possible to be racist nowadays?
It's all free speech now, right?
Or does that only apply to MAGA?

"I find a way to earn more so that I can afford it"
Like what? Work 100 hrs/week?

I just told you that a mechanic could afford a house, on 40 hrs/week, when I was young. I'm talking about my father, who first bought an apartment and then a pretty big family home, only a few years later. Interest on mortgages was around 10% back then, and you had to pay a significant sum from your pocket.
My father was the family provider and my mom was a stay at home mom.
Buying a house like my father bought, today, takes TWO people, both with higher educations, and good steady jobs, to afford. A mechanic cannot even afford to RENT on their own anymore.
Do we all need to be managers or lawyers now? Are mechanics still allowed
to live a decent life? Or do they all need to work 100 hrs/week?

You're also not consistent; when we talk about education becoming unaffordable, you are saying that people don't need it, they should just be a tradesperson.
And now you are telling people to work and study hard to get good grades to get a scholarship to help pay the cost of college. Where are those scholarships coming from? Can everyone get them? This is obviously not a solution for everyone.
Even if everyone is working and studying the hardest that is humanly possible,
then scholarships are STILL going to the few smartest people.

Why do people need to do all this "finding ways to make more money",
when they didn't need to do that before?

That 500,000 dollar house was 230,000 dollar, not even 2 decades ago.
Wages didn't go up that fast, so what happened?
Why did life get less "fair,easy or cheap" in only 20 years?

You keep giving nonsense reactions, to obvious problems. Be more honest.

Here is a video to tech you about your rights, so you don't get screwed by a cop,
like this girl was. The cop is breaking several laws and he's lying.

"Cop Arrests 19 Year-Old Girl Illegally, Her Dad Helps"
only registered users can see external links

After you outlawed slavery, the former slaves were still exploited horribly,
through the early 1900s. It was almost slavery.

I know about carpet bagging, it's when opportunistic Northerners exploited
the poor Southerners. Why do you think I call Trump a carpetbagger?

Just because you have to share a bit with other people doesn't take all your accomplishments away, or the satisfaction of having them.
Why would you think that?

How about the "I take care of my village" attitude?

To be indoctrinated, there needs to be someone doing the indoctrination.
There is none, it's 24/7 celebration of capitalism here too.
I cannot turn on the TV or radio, without being fed right-wing lies.
I recognize it, because I can think for myself, that's what happened to me.
I see what is happening, and I understand how to recognize causes.

There are simple facts that you cannot deny. Housing was mostly done by the government before, when most people could easily afford to rent, and a mechanic could buy a house. Then housing was left to 'the market', making investors wealthy, and now only couples with two highly paid jobs can afford to buy a house. Owning a house is the strongest wealth-building tool in capitalism, but the number of people who can afford it has gone done a lot and keeps going down. That's hard evidence for right-wing policies fucking the average person over. Why don't you understand?

I actually have a good reason to get out of bed, because my job is worthwhile and it pays well. Do you know how many Americans hate their jobs? They work and work and work, and they still don't make enough money to pay for a $500 emergency.
Do you think that is good motivation to get out of bed?

Everything is backwards with you, because YOU consume propaganda 24/7.
You are sharing it here. It's all designed to divide people, blame each other,
for why you're all working like slaves for peanuts, so you don't notice that
the wealthy are taking all your money.

How do you tell someone who is getting scammed that they're getting scammed?
What needs to happen to you, to make the blinders drop from your eyes?

Bullshit, maybe some land was bought, but most of it was just stolen,
and the original inhabitants murdered or put in reservations.

The slaves were used for the base commodities of the economy.
They produced most of the raw goods. That's what built up America.
The whole argument why slavery couldn't be abandoned was that it was necessary
for the development of America. Obviously America did fine without it, but the South thought it important enough to have a war over it.

Reparations are not based on skin color, but on progeny. For slavery-based reparations, the eligibility criteria would almost certainly be limited to Black Americans who can demonstrate direct lineage to enslaved people in the United States, not all Black people in general.

Europe was built on the backs of poor people, who were almost property,
but they weren't captured in one land and sold as slaves in another.
You love to rewrite history, don't you.

Did she hurt your feefees?
Of course you ARE all living on stolen land.
You cannot give it back, because most of the original owners were genocided.
And you can also not be proud of building a nation, because the slaves did most of that.

You can still be thankful for the end of the civil war, which meant the preservation of the United States as a single nation and the triumph of freedom and equality for all its people. The values that triumphed with the Union victory were:
- National Unity
- Abolition of Slavery
- Freedom and Human Rights
- Democracy and Constitutional Government
- Communal Responsibility and Compassion
In essence, the values that "won" were the core American ideals of liberty, unity,
and justice for all, even as the nation continued (and still continues) to struggle with
the full implementation of these values.
That's something that America accomplished, instead of stealing it or making others
build it for you. That is the essence of America and what made America great.
And you can be sure that Rep. Ayanna Pressley is thankful for that.

The difference is that overdue bills under Biden were caused by Covid,
while overdue bills under Trump is a direct result of tariffs and the trade war.
It will become much worse, when the higher health insurance costs start hitting.

You are correct that Amy Klobuchar isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

Blaming a lefty for something he has obviously not done,
while looking away from the country going to shit.
Can you not see how you are losing all sense of reality?

They'll have to do better, or it's the end of Ford, in at most two decades.

I am using "individualism" pejoratively, as in "rugged individualism".
In that sense, it means the opposite of solidarity. It means you're on your own,
no communities of people helping each other in a time of need.
It is sold as freedom, but it actually strips the thing that made humanity prosper.
Yes, it is creating mental illness, to push people apart, like your movement is doing.

I am personally very much an individualist. I don't do anything just because it's what society expects of me. The term for that is "nonconformist individualism".

I am very much an autonomy-focused individualist. I value:
- Personal freedom of thought
- The right to choose your life path
- Not being pressured into traditional roles
- Authentic self-direction

This aligns with:
- Existentialist individualism (Sartre, de Beauvoir)
- Left libertarian / anarchist individualism
- Liberal humanism
- “Self-direction” in modern psychology

However, I am also a socialist, which means that I am definately NOT:

1) Atomistic individualist
- The belief that people are essentially separate, self-contained units
- Downplays interdependence
- Treats community as optional or irrelevant
- Often assumes social obligations = loss of freedom
This is the type many socialists (and sociologists) criticize.

2) Egoistic or competitive individualist
- Prioritizes self-interest above all
- Views society as a competition of individuals
- Measures success by outcompeting others
- Favors inequality as a natural outcome
This is incompatible with socialist values.

3) “Rugged” individualist
- “Everyone should fend for themselves”
- Distrust of social welfare, solidarity, public services
- Resistance to collective safety nets
- Often tied to neoliberal or libertarian-conservative ideology
This is the main type of individualism that I reject.

4) Market individualist
- Defines freedom mainly as consumer choice
- Sees society through a market lens
- Frames people primarily as economic actors
- Accepts or encourages large inequalities as a result of market outcomes
Definitely at odds with democratic socialism.

Is this all you had to say about that?
I was talking economics mostly. Got anything to say about that?

Who is prospering when the economy is doing well? Not the country.
With benefits, it's the people who prosper, without it's the wealthy.

Your country is for 70% dependent on internal consumption.
It's not the wealthy who create a healthy economy, it's the people.
If the people have money to spend, the economy prospers.
The only escape from that economic principle is trade, but Trump created tariffs.
You said you don't care about trade, but if you want your economy to do well,
you need Americans to buy your products. Lowering wages is a downward spiral.
Your billionaires cannot spend your economy healthy.

Maybe you should think about people not spending money on useless expenses
to directly pay the wealthy, without creating economic activity. For instance, high rent
for buildings that have existed for decades. That's just a clear handout to the owners
of the buildings, that creates almost no economic activity. Another is health insurance.
It only takes a lot of money from everyone, to transfer money to the wealthy, without creating health benefits for the people. It damages the economy, because it reduces people's spending power, without creating much economic activity. They are leaches.

What's the cause of the high number of mental illness cases in your country?
I think that it's the individualism, and the anti-rationality movement.

Sure, there is even a video of her blowing a boyfriend.
I would think her hotness would make the car more desirable.

Is there a difference between a country prospering and the people prospering?

Was the smell in that car worse than he expected?

New Study Reveals Brexit's True Price Tag Is Staggering
only registered users can see external links

It has been many years ago that I took cash from an ATM, but I can remember that I used an option sometimes to select the bills that it pays out. ChatGPT found some information about several major U.S. banks that have ATMs that let customers select the denomination of bills when withdrawing.

Chase Bank — Some “denomination-select” or “smart” Chase ATMs let you choose how your cash is split (e.g. $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100 bills).

PNC Bank — PNC has upgraded many of its ATMs to allow denomination choice, sometimes including smaller bills like $1 or $5.

Bank of America — Some of their ATMs (especially at larger/ metropolitan branches) reportedly support choosing between different bill denominations (e.g. $10, $20, $50, $100).

Wells Fargo — At certain upgraded or branch-location ATMs, mixed bill options (beyond just $20s) are sometimes available.

27 miles away is a bit far to get the desired bills from an ATM.
I would suggest finding a small store and exchanging the money there.
They are usually happy with smaller bills, because they can use them for change.

My girlfriend is on friendly basis with two shop owners. She sometimes exchanges
change for big bills with them, specifically to help them fill their cash register.
It depends on the business. Some get small bills all day from customers, overloading the cash register, requiring them to take trips to the bank to get rid of them. Those businesses wouldn't like you asking to exchange your small bills for their big bills. One of the shop owners my girlfriend knows has a souvenir shop. She often has pretty rich tourists paying with big bills for a small item, requiring lots of smaller bills in the cash register.

An analysis of a creationist movie, pretending that creationism is science.
only registered users can see external links

It starts with addressing how they all pretend to have scientific doctorates,
while those are all honorary titles from Christian colleges, that have no recognized accreditation to ensure it meets established standards of quality in education.
That means they have NO academic titles, and they are lying before the movie even starts.

Someone in the comments said: "Basically, they are just buying their own trophies
and claiming that they "won"."

✅ 2. How accurate have the old climate models been?

A 2019 study (Hausfather et al., Geophysical Research Letters) evaluated 17 climate models from 1970–2007.

Results:

Most models predicted today’s warming almost exactly once you account for real-world CO₂ emissions.
Their average accuracy was remarkably high.

Classic examples:

James Hansen’s 1988 model: Today’s temperatures fall between his middle (“Scenario B”) and high (“Scenario C”) projections — because emissions grew faster than expected in the 1990s–2000s.

IPCC 1990–2001 models predicted ~0.15°C warming per decade.
Actual warming since the 1990s is about 0.18–0.20°C per decade.

In short:
👉 The warming has tracked very closely to mainstream predictions.

✅ 3. Which scenario are we currently on (best case, worst case, or middle)?

Climate models use different emissions pathways (formerly “SRES,” now “RCPs” or “SSPs”). Here’s where humanity actually is:

🌍 We are not on the best-case trajectory

SSP1-1.9 (≈1.5°C world) → Humanity is not reducing emissions fast enough.

🌍 We are also not on the worst-case trajectory

The old “business-as-usual” high-end scenario

RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5
is now considered unlikely because energy systems have shifted somewhat away from coal.

👉 We are currently closest to a middle-to-high emissions scenario

Most analyses put us near:

SSP2-4.5 (medium emissions)
or

SSP3-6.0 (high but not catastrophic emissions)

This corresponds to:

~2.4–3.0°C warming by 2100 if current policies continue.

If countries meet their long-term pledges, possibly ~2°C — but pledges are not policy.

So climate change today is playing out extremely close to what mid-range models from decades ago predicted.

Thunberg was banned from Venice after she participated in a protest that dyed the
Grand Canal green. But calling that “polluting historic waterways” is a loaded portrayal;
the demonstrators say they used non-toxic dye, and there is no proof of long-term pollution or damage. In other words: the “ban” and “dyeing” are real, but the “pollution of historic treasures” claim is more rhetorical spin than verified fact.

You are pushing a destructive right-wing agenda; Climate Change is real and destructive
and it's NOT left-wing to want to protect nature, and humanity that is dependent on it.

“None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.”
That's an absolute lie, climate change is progressing as scientists predicted.
Many past “predictions” have already come true.

Climate scientists’ projections from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s included:

✔ Continued global warming
Predicted since the 1970s.
Outcome: Correct. The planet has warmed about 1.2°C relative to pre-industrial levels — almost exactly what early models projected.

✔ More frequent and intense heatwaves
Predicted in the 1980s–1990s.
Outcome: Correct. Heatwaves are now more frequent, longer, and more intense on every continent except Antarctica.

✔ Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline
Predicted in the 1980s.
Outcome: Correct — the summer sea-ice minimum has declined by ~40% since satellite records began in 1979.

✔ Sea-level rise accelerating
Predicted since the First IPCC Report (1990).
Outcome: Correct — global sea level is rising faster today than in the late 20th century.

✔ Heavier rainfall & flooding
Predicted in the 1990s under a warming atmosphere with more water vapor.
Outcome: Correct — extreme rainfall events have increased globally.

✔ Increased wildfire risk
Predicted since the 1990s due to higher temperatures and drier vegetation.
Outcome: Correct, especially in western North America, Australia, Mediterranean, Siberia.

So the claim that “none of the predictions came true” is simply misinformation.

Mark Kelly - Trump has called for my execution because he didn’t like what I had to say
only registered users can see external links

No, it's not discrimination?
Yes, it is discrimination, because you accuse ALL OF THEM doing it,
and that's not true. And there is no link with BLM.

ChatGPT doesn't agree with your origin story:

The fashion trend of wearing pants low enough to show underwear—commonly called sagging—is generally traced to U.S. prisons in the 1970s–1980s, and later to hip-hop culture. Here are the main explanations:

1. U.S. Prison System (most commonly cited origin)
Prisons often forbade belts, because belts could be used as weapons or for self-harm.

As a result, pants frequently sagged, especially if they didn’t fit well.

Some versions of the story claim it signaled sexual availability, but historians and correctional officers largely dismiss this as a myth; the fit of clothing was simply poor.

2. Hip-Hop Culture (1990s onward)
Rappers and hip-hop artists adopted the look, partly reflecting prison culture and partly as a style of rebellion.

Artists like Tupac, Snoop Dogg, and groups like Onyx wore saggy pants in music videos, bringing it into mainstream youth fashion.

3. Skater and Street Cultures
In the 1990s and early 2000s, skateboarders also wore oversized, low-riding pants for comfort and style, which further spread the trend.

4. Symbol of Rebellion
For many young people, sagging became a deliberate anti-establishment statement,
a way to challenge dress norms and authority.

In short
Sagging emerged from prison clothing restrictions, became popularized by hip-hop, and evolved into a broad cultural fashion trend.

American Explains: The World Map
only registered users can see external links

Company owner thinks thought that tariffs wouldn't affect the price of his products (knives),
because they are American made. He found out he was wrong.
only registered users can see external links

This is a good example of discrimination. Because there is a fashion statement, predominantly by young black man, to walk around with their pants down and their
undies showing, you generalize that towards everyone who associates with BLM.
I know it's a joke, but it is a discriminatory joke.

They already have attention, lots of it, from your political side,
and it is very negative attention.

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

There is a difference between acknowledging race and associating negative characteristics with that race, and assuming someone has certain negative characteristics, because they are a member of a certain race.

So, acknowledging that people are different isn't racism.
It depends very much on what differences you are talking about.
If you are associating certain differences with race, that have nothing to do with race, eg intelligence or ethics or human value, then that can be called out as racism.

James Chewbonic - I got Surgery to Smell for the First Time
only registered users can see external links

A guy made a fun video about his life.

Their lives were probably less complex, but that doesn't mean that they had less to worry about. They had fewer, but much serious worries, we have lots more, but less serious worries. You are worried about every fearmongering anecdote from your
right-wing news outlets, they were worried if they would survive the oncoming winter.

Coronaviruses have been around for millions of years, long before humans existed. Paleovirology has found some evidence that we inherited some resistance from the Neanderthals. Still, they died of so many diseases that we consider mild today.
And of course modern medicine has conquered several horrible diseases.
Unfortunately, modern anti-science is bringing some of them back.

The behavioral tendencies for racism are probably very old, but back then tribalism overruled it. People didn't just distrust other races, they distrust everyone outside of their tribe. It's behavior that is even observed in apes.

What I've read about it is that we have evolutionary tendencies to determine in-groups and out-groups, but racism emerged from cultural, political, and economic forces.
Racism as we understand it today—fixed, hierarchical, and global—emerged primarily in the last 500 years, driven by:
- colonial expansion
- the transatlantic slave trade
- European imperial ideologies
- scientific racism in the 18th–19th centuries

Slave trading has been going on for thousands of years, but it wasn't based on race. Read the bible and see how the Jews had different rules about owning slaves for Jews and everyone else. That was not based on race, because everyone in that area looked the same. It was based on in-groups and out-groups.

I don't think it's based on energy conservation, I think it's based on power preservation.
For a dominant group, defining another group as “inferior,” “different,” or “dangerous” creates:
- a boundary around the in-group
- a rationale for unequal treatment
- a story that justifies their power
This makes it easier to maintain control without relying solely on force.

Racism provides ideological cover for distributing benefits unequally: land, jobs, political rights, education, wealth and safety.

By claiming that some groups are “naturally suited” to labor, or “less civilized,” or “less intelligent,” the ruling group can preserve advantages and restrict competition.

A key principle of power is: It’s easier to rule a population that is divided than one that is united. Racism:
- creates divisions among the working class or subordinate groups
- prevents coalitions that might challenge the dominant group
- redirects frustration toward minority groups instead of toward the powerful

It legitimizes coercive institutions. Cultural beliefs about racial difference allow the in-group to build institutions that reinforce inequality, such as:
- segregated schools
- restricted voting rights
- discriminatory policing
- immigration controls
- unequal legal systems
These become seen as “necessary” instead of oppressive.

It stabilizes the dominant group’s identity. Power is not only material—it is also psychological. Racism gives the in-group:
- a sense of superiority
- a justification for their privileged position
- a shared identity built around dominance
This creates emotional cohesion within the ruling group.

It masks the real mechanisms of power. Racism can make inequality appear:
- natural
- inevitable
- rooted in biology
- the “fault” of the oppressed group
This hides the structural causes, allowing the powerful to avoid accountability.

Thus, racism is not an evolutionary adaptation, it is a cultural strategy that societies can (and often do) use to maintain power structures.

You cannot achieve 'true equality' by ignoring differences between people.
Race still plays a part, because of systemic discrimination.
Ignoring the existence of that is the opposite of having the goal of ANY equality.

You think that Trump has any principles, that's where you go wrong.
It's all political theater, to distract you. It's just a grift.
He only says the things he says, because he wants you to believe them.
He turns on a dime, on everything he ever said, if he thinks he can score with it.
He does it all the time, but because you are in a cult, you don't even realize.

Trump only cares about himself and popularity (the 'ratings').
He envies Mamdani for his overwhelming popularity.

No dumb-ass, they are corporatists; wealthy people who like the capitalist system, because it favors wealthy people.

Capitalism works for THEM, because they are the WEALTHY who exploit everyone else.
And if they are still only rich yet, they get paid by the wealthy.

How many times did I tell you that it is shear stupidity to call the Democrats "Socialists!", "Communists!", "Radical left!", "Far left!" and "Marxists!"?

Now you see it for yourself, and then you make some stupid comment about it.

HIDDEN CAMERA – Trump’s DOJ on plans to redact Republicans from Epstein Files
only registered users can see external links

Like no one thought of them doing that.

In any case, that's a clear admission that he knows that there's lots of Republicans in it.
The first released version will likely be painted black for 80%.

Do you think that camping for 17 years is a worthwhile way to spend your life?

No problems? One tiny infection can kill you.
What do you think his teeth are like? Would he still have some?

Maybe you would have more rational political insights, if you wouldn't romanticize
living like a wild animal or some caveman. You are probably still recovering somewhat from a medical intervention that saved your life, but instead of absorbing that into your worldview, you think people are better off living like we did 10,000 years ago.
Understand that even the poorest person in the modern world has a much better
quality of life than the people back then. About half the children died before the age of 5, from some disease, accident or being eaten by a predator.

Every Day Began With Uncertainty. A person woke up not knowing if they would eat that day. Seasons mattered brutally: winter or drought could mean days with almost nothing—maybe a handful of nuts, bitter roots, or dried meat if they had been lucky enough to store some.

Cold, heat, wind, and rain all mattered more than any predator.

Clothing was animal hide, often stiff, smelly, and poorly insulating. Shelters were drafty huts or temporary camps. A single storm could wipe out a group’s food stores, trap them indoors, or kill the very young and the very old.

Aches, injuries, and infections were simply part of existence.
- No painkillers beyond plants that dulled the senses
- No medical treatment for sprains, fractures, or infected wounds
- Teeth worn down from grit in stone-ground food
- Parasites, fleas, lice
Most adults lived with chronic pain that would send a modern person to the ER.

Large predators still roamed in many regions—lions, wolves, cave bears, saber-toothed cats (in earlier periods), hyenas.
Even more dangerous were simply:
Falls, Cuts that got infected, Snakebites, Fires and Conflict with other groups. Any of these could be fatal.

Parents expected to lose children; grief was constant, quiet, and communal.

Whether hunter-gatherer or early farmer, work was exhausting.
For hunters:
- Track animals for hours or days
- Carry heavy meat back to camp
- Face dangerous prey
For gatherers:
- Bend and kneel for hours collecting roots, seeds, nuts
- Process plants by scraping, pounding, grinding

For early farmers:
- Dig, plant, weed, haul water
- Defend fields from animals
- Store grain or risk starvation

While some individuals lived into their 50s or even 60s, the average life expectancy was dramatically pulled down by:
- infant deaths
- infections
- accidents
- childbirth risks
- malnutrition
Living to 30 was already an accomplishment.

Anxiety was a permanent companion:
- Will we eat tomorrow?
- Will the weather turn?
- Is that sound a predator?
- Are other tribes approaching?
There was wonder, community, and meaning—but also relentless uncertainty.

The only upside I see from that time is that the tribe helped each other to stay alive. Nowadays, people are completely isolated from each other. People are selfish, because that is idolized as the goal for self improvement. The sad thing is that people who support that selfish system often point to 10,000 years back, calling it "survival of the fittest".
That is very dishonest propaganda to justify inequality, because it is the opposite of what evolution teaches. Humans survived because of cooperation, resource sharing, division of labor, caring for the vulnerable and group solidarity.

Nonsense, the average government debt-to-GDP ratio for the European Union (EU)
was 81.9% at the end of the second quarter of 2025.
In the second quarter of 2025, the U.S. government's debt-to-GDP ratio was 119.4%.
If the EU is broke, the US is much more broke.

The EU is asking the UK for “billions”, but these are not arbitrary demands; they are part of a legally binding Brexit financial settlement. It’s the UK repaying agreed obligations as part of the Brexit exit deal.

So, you're just parroting filthy lies for a political reason.

Trump is ILLEGALLY withholding hundreds of billions of dollars in funding from California,
while Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta are successfully fighting Trump
in court and taking back $168 billion of the money that they are owed, and now you are blaming California for their deficit? Wow, that's dishonest!

only registered users can see external links

Californians already paid about $275.6 billion more in federal taxes than they received
in federal spending, keeping afloat all those poverty stricken red states, and you have
the nerve to blame them for their Trump induced deficit? Damn!

Brooke Rollins (U.S. Secretary of Agriculture) claimed that, but provided NO underlying data publicly, in a way that independent fact-checkers could fully verify the 186,000 deceased number.

Brooke Rollins is a political figure with close ties to Trump. There are plausible motivations for her to frame SNAP-fraud data in a way that aligns with Trump-era policy goals.

You're cherry picking the most positive poll in existence,
and he is still below 50%, in your most positive poll.

The polling aggregator Silver Bulletin (built on the work of Nate Silver) reports his approval at about 41.2 % as of Nov 22, 2025.
only registered users can see external links

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found his approval at only 38 %
only registered users can see external links

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama's popularity, as measured by various job approval polls, was frequently less than 50% during his time in office.
While he won the national popular vote in both his presidential elections with over 50% (52.9% in 2008 and 51.1% in 2012), his day-to-day or weekly job approval ratings fluctuated considerably.

Key points regarding his approval ratings:

Early Presidency: He started with a high approval rating of 67% in January 2009.

Declines: His rating gradually dropped over the next two years, hitting a low of 40%
in September and October 2011.

Mid-Presidency: For a period of about three years, from March 2013 to March 2016, his approval rating consistently stayed below 50%, never dipping below 40% but also never rising above 49% during that time.

End of Term: His popularity rose again toward the end of his second term, finishing his presidency with a final weekly rating of 59% in mid-January 2017.

It is important to say that Obama didn't have majorities in congress, so he couldn't do anything he wanted to do. Trump has a majority in congress. That doesn't really matter, because Trump is the king of national emergencies and executive orders, bypassing congress. He also has a supreme court that mostly lets him do whatever he wants.

That is significant, because it means that Obama was not very popular for not being able to do the things that he promised, while Trump is unpopular for doing the things that he's doing. Trump can do what he wants, but is still ignoring lots of promises that he made.

It saddens me to see that the American public doesn't understand this,
and values one of the best presidents that the US ever had only a bit higher
than the worst one.

That's called "cherry picking": picking ONE outlier that confirms what you want to believe.
And then you act happy about a positive outlier putting him below 50%. That's funny to me.

Rasmussen’s methodology: They focus on likely voters, and their daily tracking poll is a specific type of sample. Other polls use all adults or registered voters, which can yield different results.

Polling averages show his approval is lower than 47 %. For example:

The polling aggregator Silver Bulletin (built on the work of Nate Silver) reports his approval at about 41.2 % as of Nov 22, 2025.
only registered users can see external links

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found his approval at only 38 %
only registered users can see external links