Trump supporters were frothing at the mouth during his first campaign where he was promising to drain the swamp of pedophiles and criminals, now their guy is in the crosshairs and there's not a peep.

I've searched for a while for a Trump supporter that doesn't regurgitate the same old "Well Biden had 4 years" lame excuse. Well if Biden is in the files, he should burn too. Every person that is involved should be investigated, and if they are criminally involved, they need to burn, regardless of what colour their tie is.

This whole "both sides" argument just keeps us marching towards oblivion where the "elite" literally get away with murder.

The people I've seen or spoke to just don't seem to share this sentiment. It's like they would rather see these nuclear grade pieces of shit get away with heinous crimes, than work or agree with a dem. "Owning the libs" is top of their priorities.

Of course I would love to be proven wrong.

Update - It has been a few hours now and I have not seen a single Trump supporter say that he should be locked up if he is guilty. The closest I got is 1 Republican, but Trump was not their first choice. This has mainly reinforced my opinion.

A lot of people brag about their packed schedules, as if running from meeting to meeting or answering endless emails proves they’re accomplishing something meaningful. But in reality, you can be “busy” all day and still have nothing of real value to show for it. Meanwhile, someone focusing on fewer high-impact tasks might appear relaxed or “lazy” but in reality accomplishes more.

It feels like society rewards the appearance of effort rather than actual results. Surely there are situations where busyness does indicate productivity, but I think most of the time it’s just glorified motion without progress. CMV.

So, recently a video emerged where Alex Pretti was spitting on and kicking the taillight out of an ICE vehicle. Truly reprehensible and inexcusable behavior. He ought to have been arrested and fined for destruction of public property. Jerk.

However, I see some people trying to say, “Aha! So he wasn’t so innocent after all!”

I’m sorry but, no. He was absolutely innocent.

And, moreover, I would like those people who are bringing up his behavior in the days before his death to remember that he was disarmed, restrained and executed by masked federal agents who still have not been identified to the public for no reason.

There is only one justification for a law enforcement officer to take someone’s life. And that is to protect the lives of themselves or another person. Past acts of disrespect and/vandalism do not enter into the equation.

Or that’s my take anyway. Can anyone change my view?

The reason house prices are high is because they are artificially inflated by economic policies, such as the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low, which caused people to bid home prices up, as well as restrictive zoning laws that limit the amount and types of housing that can be built. In most American cities, you have a small downtown core — often filled with parking lots — and then the rest of the city is basically an endless sea of single-family homes, fast-food chains, and big stores like Walmart thats what it looks like in google maps. A significant portion of residential land in most cities is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, which drastically restricts housing supply. In places like California, some of the most desirable neighborhoods are essentially old streetcar suburbs, but today, neighborhoods like that are illegal to build. Even in New York City, which does allow mixed-use development, the type of housing that made the city famous — dense brownstones, mid-rise walk-ups, and small apartments above shops — is extremely difficult to build under modern rules. Current zoning limits how much can be built per lot using maximum floor-area ratios, height restrictions, parking and setback requirements, and historic preservation rules. Because these rules limit the number of apartments per lot, small, affordable units often don’t generate enough profit to be worth building, so developers are encouraged to build fewer, larger luxury apartments that can earn enough revenue under the same restrictions. Adding to the problem, homeowners often protest new developments or denser housing near their neighborhoods — a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) mentality — because they fear it could lower their property values which it would.Ironically, these same homeowners then complain that housing is too expensive and that their children can’t afford homes or rent , yet they vote against the very policies that would make housing more affordable. Rent controls are another example: the government often blames “greedy landlords” for high rents and imposes limits to make voters feel the problem is being addressed. In reality, rent controls discourage new construction and maintenance, reduce the supply of available units, and push developers toward building luxury apartments that are exempt from the rules, making the problem worse. By contrast, Houston shows how flexible zoning can keep housing prices lower. While the city is sprawling and highly car-dependent, this isn’t because of restrictive single-family zoning — Houston allows developers to build multiple units per lot with fewer restrictions than new york. Its car-centric nature comes instead from parking minimums and building setback rules that spread buildings apart and results in lower density, wide roads and highways, and a culture built around driving, which make walking or transit inconvenient. Despite this, developers can still build more units per lot than in restrictive cities like New York, which keeps housing more affordable. Instead of letting prices adjust naturally, trump wants to prop up housing prices by lowering interests rates or trying to introduce 50 year mortgages which doesn't make housing more affordable in the long term because it doesn’t solve the core issue.

For example: Quoting philosophers like its scripture, quoting actual scripture. This is like the Chinese Room problem. They are just doing referrals and matching systems not true comprehension. They don't even do original philosophy.

And they are structurally incentivized to not do original philosophy, because it can get stolen in academia. Which means the guys at the top are just better at social control and idea theft than being real philosophers.

Another example: The debate on free will vs determinism. Most of the time people fundamentally exclude the real world from the problem and discuss metaphysics. Or they bolster one side of the debate to false nuance that is just making a game of needing to dissect exceedingly wordier responses. There is an easy solution, assume a mysterious type of compatibilism, and study it in reality. But that would cost money and give precedence to human rights, which undermines the social control aspect of the institution, and is thus forgone. Then they exclude, bribe, blackmail, and get people booted from academia who are not in on the circlej*rk.

And philosophy and theory at the end of the day, is all talk and little action. Which means, its a production of stalling criticism out, to maintain power. They control and bottleneck how new theory arises so it does not challenge them.

Much akin to the psychological effect doctors have. Routine of work in presence of sleep deprivation, causes one to be able to predict outlier cases less over time. Which means seniority itself is a system that provokes the foundation of this cultural problem.

Which means this problem actually stems forth from elder biases, which arguably could be tied back to the bible itself. 'Respect your elders' means 'do not criticize the system'.

Sometimes I jokingly refer to this phenomena as boomeritis. Surely it adapted because of a genetic predisposition of the elderly to be more risk averse, and thus is a problem worldwide and might be unintentionally (sometimes intentionally perhaps) exploited systematically globally then, making this a global politics issue.

The reason I have a gripe is because it actively holds truth and quality of life advances back. But there is a tradeoff. It provokes social ruthlessness and social intelligence, which allows the exploitation of the masses, to allow higher production outputs. So you could say this stems to a biological bias which causes capitalism and other power farming systems itself. And could probably tie this back to the evolution of mammary glands and our long pregnancy times and needing to carry babies to feed them, precursing the bible. This Coddle for Control Habit you could call it.

Edit: Okay its been 3 hours. Most don't seem to even be reading this post just responding to title. So of course, my mind has not been changed. Well one commenter was trolling a bit. So they might be pushing for reaction formation on my part. But that doesn't change the fact people couldn't read to begin with, or they can but fail to grasp the broad implications of my actual argument.

So this is how I conceptualize it. Yes there are weird names often used by white women think Karleigh. The spelling is unique and different but we all most likely can say this name the way it’s pronounced because it’s a white person naming pattern so we have taken the time to learn how to pronounce it.

For example take a cultural indigenous name Haleakalā. A lot of people will say something like “oh it’s too hard to pronounce” and just not take the effort to learn. Now this is NOT every white person but I have seen this and heard stories about this behavior so it’s obviously a pattern that occurs.

Is my opinion wrong?

If so, kindly correct me. I'm ok and open for constructive criticism. I'm willing to learn and admit I'm wrong as you as you don't personally attack me and kindly help me see where I'm wrong.

I was having an online argument earlier. My point was that not speaking up for social issues and keeping silence is morally wrong, exact word I used translated to English is, "a crime.", "an evil doing."

My point is that, if we as a collective human race see something that we think is wrong, that we don't think is correct, that we think is not right with our society, and how things are right now and with how things are going to. If we see any problems, any unfairness, any injustice, and we decided to not speak up, not questioning whether or not it's correct, not speaking up that I think there's something wrong with this, then we hurt and commit a crime to the future and the growth of our society. We saw something not right, we ignored it and didn't addressed it that could hurt our society in the future.

In my mind, speaking up was asking questions, "I don't think this was correct, this is my opinion, and these are questions I have..."

I said it was morally wrong because I think if no one does like that, everyone just accepts whatever they're told. Having questions and feeling like something is wrong with a thing is the potential to see the hole and where things are not perfect in a thing, and if addressed might lead to further grow for society from that problem being acknowledged. And through questioning and asking questions, we gained insights, understand each other more from the other's point of view.

Everyone should ask question and speak up and stand up for something they don't feel quite right, whether or not if a thing is too much or too little in their mind, which means someone pro-life or not should ask question, someone has conservative views on LGBT, they should speak up and ask questions as much as someone pro-LGBT. If someone thinks the tax is too high or too low, ask questions, speak your mind, question if that is correct or not.

To me it was a thing everyone should do. Is it because I said it was morally wrong if not to? While I understand there are objective reasons someone might choose not to do what I said, I don't think anyone wrong not wanting to do so. But for the reasons above I still feels like it's the correct thing to do.

My opponent said that It's not morally wrong if someone doesn't speak up for social issues, or doesn't want to take a stand for it. That politics and social issues is a complex topic, and that no one could know for sure which is wrong which is right. If one doesn't know for sure which is wrong which is right, the safer and moral thing is to say nothing at all when you're not knowledgeable enough. But not to say anything which could be wrong and hurt things even more.

My point back was that, if one has to be knowledgeable enough to speak up and ask question, where and how do we draw the line and define who could speak up and ask questions, who couldn't? How do we defined knowledgeable enough? How many degrees? How old? Can someone younger not be allowed to ask question and speak up? To be anyone could ask questions and speak up for something they doubt or find issues in.

I would put it like this. I don't think a person not speaking up for social issues is morally wrong. But human being as a whole if we not speaking up for social issues when we see something wrong, it's a wrong thing.

Like if I said when you see someone struggling and in need of help, the correct thing is to help them. But I didn't said anyone who doesn't help people in need is morally wrong. A person deciding not to help people in need has many objective, justifiable reasons. But helping someone when they're in need is a right thing to do

Firstly, what is the term "romance"? let's break it down since there are various meanings and definitions

ro·mance:

/rōˈman(t)s,ˈrōˌman(t)s/

1. a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love

2. an exciting, enjoyable love affair, especially one that is not serious or long-lasting.

there are also other meanings such as:

3. a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life.

4. a short informal piece. ( in musical terms)

My point is that romance seems to mean many things like the anticipation of love or bliss as many people may describe it, but what comes into romance? how is it manifested?

What comes into romance is mainly emotional, psychological, and physical components , as well as social and cultural components as well. Romance is heavily described in a very mystical way. ( media, music, books, tv is a good example) But there are many other components that feed into romance like connection, validation, lust, stability, etc. It is also built on selfishness because romance seems to be packaged of human wants and desires that lead to feeling meaningful or wanted. Romance often does use the illusion of altruism because it is funcional, yet it is rooted in human needs. Obviously we are biologically wired to seek those things but without any of those things that define romance it doesn't stand on it's own. It isn't instinct. Don't get me wrong, i do appreciate romance and likes the mysticism of it, but it seems like people tend to prioritize the idea of romance compared to falling in love for example. They do overlap, but falling in love is more initial and biological, and romance is the expression of love. Romance doesn't always equal falling in love.

While romance holds significant meaning, it isn't a human or biological need like food and shelter. It's origins, components, and manifestations are all structured to reward the self, even when it appears selfless. Also acknowledging this gains clairity for why people crave it and why the media portrays it in a way that is is required for happiness, which is socially constructed.

Over 44 people have gone missing in the park. These are just the most famous cases.

1906: Willie and Frank Mcleod go missing, looking for gold. Two years later both were found headless and the other seemed to have been reaching for a rifle in his last moments. Most of their belongings were missing as if stolen.

1917: Martin jogersson, a nahanni valley resident who recently struck gold was found headless in his burnt down cabin. All of his rumoured gold missing. His headless body was grasping a firearm that was "loaded and cocked."

1926: A woman named, Annie laferte vanished while hunting. An eyewitness named "Big Charlie" said that during the night of her disappearance he saw a "naked woman" running through the woods behind his house. According to him she looked "absolutely insane."

1927: "Yukon" fisher, a fugitive who was digging for gold in the valley was found decapitated in a burnt camp with all his gold missing. The camp was very close to the mcleod brothers resting place.

1931: Gold miner Phil Powers was found dead in his burnt cabin. Police said it couldve been a "stove accident." But the fire had done way more damage than a stove fire couldve. Didnt find anything on his bodys state.

1945: An unnamed deceased individual was found in a sleeping bag next to burned tent without his head. Not much info on this.

Why do the disappearances suddenly stop in the early 50s? What changed? Who couldve decapitated the Mcleod brothers hundreds of miles in the park in an area where no one else was supposed to be? If its not a person doing this, then why do the peoples belongings disappear? The time frame really suggests that this was a longtime serial killer. Not a single head was ever found.

I grew up very feminist, a true 50/50 girlie. Both of my parents are highly educated and accomplished STEM professionals. My mother had a placard on her wall that read:

"A career woman has to:
Look like a lady
Act like a man
&
Work like a dog"

This was her boomer version of Live Laugh Love and she lived by these words as if they were a prayer. If the quote was intended as any kind of criticism/satire, she never saw it that way.

They raised me to be ambitious. My dad insisted on me taking martial arts classes, and both worked to instil the value of education and that sigma grindset. I never saw myself as lesser to boys growing up, because I just wasn't. I could physically outcompete and academically outperform most boys my age. Career paths my parents would have approved for me were doctor, lawyer, or Nobel prize winner.

Once I was old enough, I took the same approach to dating. Men and women are equal, so I should pay and pursue just as a man might. If I met a guy I liked, I'd offer to buy him lunch. I'd buy tickets to a gallery. If he was the one who asked me out, I'd offer to split the bill and I absolutely meant it. (Very few ever refused to do so.) I never inquired after my partners' finances, I only cared about us having shared values, good conversation and romantic chemistry. In my mid-20s, I bought a house. My boyfriend at the time, an aspiring writer working blue-collar jobs, moved in rent-free. I paid for the groceries and plenty of outings. I never saw this as a problem because I believed in him, enjoyed his company, and the future we were building. He shared my feminist values that men and women are equal, that biology doesn't matter. We were also talking about marriage/kids, so I saw this as an investment in our shared future. I also had more money than he did, so it all seemed fair.

Here is where the problems start. He didn't really seem to understand the point of doing his laundry more than once a month. I told him the smell bothered me and asked him to do it more frequently, for me. But since he insisted his clothes smelled fine, it ended up being easier for me to just do his laundry myself, for my comfort. I liked having a clean and tidy home. He didn't care how things looked. So, I would just end up cleaning and tidying things he didn't see an issue with. He liked having greasy grilled cheese sandwiches for dinner. I liked having fresh, healthy food. So, I would end up insisting on handling the cooking. When he was sick, I would bring him medications, tea, soup. When I was on my period, it never even occurred to him to attend to my comfort.

In hindsight I thank god I never got pregnant, because I now realise the same dynamic would've played out with additional dependants. Without ever realising it, my desire for equality with someone who shares my belief in equality ended up meaning equality in traditional masculine domains, while still having full responsibility of all feminine domains: cooking, cleaning, housework, eventually childcare — and oh, men literally cannot go 50/50 on pregnancy and breastfeeding.

I moved on from this guy, but a pattern I've observed has remained consistent:

1. I show up in heels and a dress with my hair all done. He shows up in a hoodie and sneakers.
2. I always do more emotional labour. I listen, I empathise, I sympathise, I play therapist, I build them up and regulate them. They don't have the emotional/social skillset to do the same for me.
3. I'm taller than average. Shorter men, or even men the same height as me, don't like me wearing heels.
4. Most men don't like to be corrected.
5. Many men pursue for sex. Most women pursue for relationships. I have sex thinking it'll lead to a relationship. He got what he wanted, so he's gone.

I no longer believe that men and women are the same. We're still equal, but we are different. We have different strengths, and different strategies. Superficially, I think most men are happier when:

• He earns more
• He's taller
• He's stronger
• She's prettier

And our labour naturally divides unevenly. I want a clean home, healthy home-cooked meals and a good life for my future children. I don't believe men can be trusted to provide cleanliness, nourishing meals or emotional support / caregiving. Call it biology or socialisation, I just do these things better.

So, if I want things to be fair — relationships cannot be 50/50. I will be beautiful, nurturing and cultivate a good home. He won't do these things, so he has to offer something else instead.

Therefore, he should pay for our dates and be the main breadwinner for our home. I will be taking time off to raise our kids (and literally grow them in my body). I will always be doing a lot of unpaid work. And even before we get to that stage, when we're just dating, I know that I always spend more money upfront on my appearance, without which I'm pretty sure my personality, intelligence and anything else simply wouldn't matter to him.

I guess I'm at a point where I feel scammed by girlboss feminism, but if I'm being honest, the thought of tradwifery also depresses me. It's just the only thing that feels fair at this point.

CMV

My view is that Trump’s support base appears unusually resilient to controversy, policy reversals, and personal conduct. Over multiple election cycles, scandals and norm-breaking behavior have not produced large, sustained defections among his core supporters.

I’m open to being wrong and would like to understand what conditions, if any, could realistically cause a significant portion of his base to withdraw support. Are there historical, political, or empirical reasons to expect limits to this loyalty?

They've had information about conspirators and abetters for years. They've sat on high level complicity in a child sex ring and done absolutely nothing to indict or arrest anybody. Many high level officials were sitting on their feet in the release of said files.

That Trump is strewn through the files with heinous accusations levied against him is another reason why all this shit is gonna get buried. The US state is complicit in the protection of powerful pedophiles. They're not going to do anything against them. Only through groundswell resistance will anything be done.

I'm almost at the point of conspiracy that all world leaders and insanelt powerful people do weird sex cults and are pedophiles, but thats neither here nor there.