211–220 of 816 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> without revolutionary frameworks I’d argue that the level of corruption we’re seeing, not just in the USA but all over the Western world, hasn’t risen to a level that warrants revolutionary action. > nobody seems to care And it would seem that the masses tend to agree. We are much much better off tolerating this level of corruption than we would be attempting a revolution. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how fat the…
Sad that you have given up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sycophants in DC Who? Because if you have evidence of military secrets being leaked through prediction markets, we actually need that journalistic record maintained.
I don't think the parent mentioned military secrets in particular? But the insider trading is already well documented e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sycophants in DC Who? Because if you have evidence of military secrets being leaked through prediction markets, we actually need that journalistic record maintained.
I don't think the parent mentioned military secrets in particular? But the insider trading is already well documented e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading. (OP said those "in DC seem to be able to do everything listed.")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh that’s interesting. The sycophants in DC seem to be able to do everything listed here with no repercussions.
> sycophants in DC Who? Because if you have evidence of military secrets being leaked through prediction markets, we actually need that journalistic record maintained.
It seems like it would be highly demoralizing to US soldiers that they are prosecuted for betting on the outcomes of the battles they are risking their lives for but those insider trading commanding them aren't.
On the flip side: who if not me and my precision guided munitions, will protect America (and freedom) from the clear and present danger of 8 year old iranian girls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Especially if the casino (or "prediction market") has access to the identities of players via id verification, fingerprinting, or other means.
You mean any non crypto payment system? :)
Just as Smedley D. Butler once stated, many many years ago: "War is a racket"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its valid to say a lot of things. But it doesn't escape you from having to own those choices. You are what you'll accept, and you looked at the choices given and said "I'm okay with either one". Because the consequences of whatever mutual dissatisfaction you had still means one of them gained power and implemented their agenda anyway. And you were okay with that. You don't get to not make a decision and then pretend…
the other person was talking about not making a decision, so you've transposed an idea not mentioned at all onto my comment good luck out there what to remember: the goal of the parties are to win friends and influence people, it's a weird meme that you aren't doing that and neither is the other party. time to re-evaluate the communication style yeah? proselytizing isn't working
Have you considered the possibility that the meme might be false? That would explain neatly why it's so weird.
That’s hilarious … so he’s arrested and put on trial and all the senate and congress are doing the exact same and free? lol
This is how a caste system works. People is not judged based on their actions but their relationship to power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern US conservative party really does seem to believe only in that one principle and nothing else. They will pardon actual sex traffickers like Andrew Tate and worse as long as they're on their side. They will defend any action at all by Trump, no matter how vile or illegal or stupid or wrong. It's not a sleight of hand if its true.
Go read a few months worth of the National Review. Many prominent conservative thinkers are not particularly big fans of Trump. They like portions of his initiatives and policies but not him as a standard bearer, because he does dumb, ill-principled stuff at odds with conservatism. Peggy Noonan of the WSJ can't write two sentences without letting you know how much she disdains Trump, e.g.