but Trump’s refusal to both release the files and also provide a sensible and consistent reason for not doing so despite heavy public backlash together absolutely implies guilt.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
but Trump’s refusal to both release the files and also provide a sensible and consistent reason for not doing so despite heavy public backlash together absolutely implies guilt.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Your FDR invented corporate shilling as a way to win the war. Why do you think he brought all those rich factory owners to the White House for cigars and whiskey sessions? It's not a grand ideological conspiracy; it's just how you guys get things done. After the war, the government let corporate advertisement run the country. Policy through corporate jingles. I think you guys are the only country that still allows direct pharmaceutical advertisements, and you used to advertise beer and tobacco like crazy.
Obstruction, interference, or disobedience of a command to move back are illegal,...yep
Alex Pretti did none of those things....maybe
Even if he did, none of those things are punishable by execution... like I said, your country has a long history of dealing harshly with vigilantes where the federal law is concerned.
It's the law, you just need to know it exists, response isn't necessary.
You need at least 'some popularity to enforce the law, if the people hate you enough, they will 'NOT conform.
Which is why 300,000 Confederate soldiers died, but the survivors eventually conformed.
America has been historically severe and harsh with vigilantes regarding the Federal Law and the Supremacy Clause. This isn't a new trend.
YES,
But when you escalate a situation and shoot unarmed American civilians, this is 'breaking clear rules and consistency.
Killing American civilians this often and so carelessly is 'not the consistency Americans expect.
What happened was a person broke the law by standing too close to a federal agent during an arrest. That's a felony. The person who brought a gun to a place and knowingly committed a felony escalated the situation. Victim blaming the ICE agents dealing with a felon doesn't change the fact that laws need to be defined and enforced in a lawful society, regardless of whether or not you feel you can get up in an arresting officer's face armed with a camera and a Sig Sauer.
The situation didn’t begin with ICE enforcement. It began when someone chose to insert themselves into an active arrest zone. Proximity rules around arrests aren’t vibes-based. They exist precisely because chaos spikes fast when crowds compress a crime scene. Standing too close to a law-controlled scene isn’t symbolic 1st amendment speech; it’s physical interference. Because your law defines that as a felony, it’s no longer a gray area. It's FAFO.
I don't know what FA means.
What you’re really up against in that “You shouldn’t do actions that anger people” line is the assumption that governing is about "never offending anyone." But that’s not how law, order, democracy, or a civil society works. You don’t need uniform popularity to enforce the law; you need clear rules and consistency from a majority. Trying to avoid all anger will always hand the agenda to whoever’s loudest and least constrained. Everything in governance is a trade-off, and a choice to prioritize uniform comfort is worse than no solution at all. People need clear rules and consequences, not "social justice" that has arbitrary rules depending on your signals. They need simple justice, reliable, predictable, and no modifiers.
History is filled with examples where laws were upheld despite anger and where retreat from enforcement invited longer, wider disorder. Mobilizing federal officers to uphold constitutional law is simply the mechanism a republic uses when the rule of law is challenged. What doesn’t work is turning every breakdown of order into a moral indictment of enforcement itself. Victim blaming the law officers after they are obstructed by vigilantes.
Right now, that is what’s happening in Minnesota. Federal agents have been deployed to enforce immigration laws, and that operation has led to multiple confrontations and fatal shootings of civilians, sparking widespread protests and criticism. Local leaders are calling for accountability and even withdrawal of federal forces, while the national debate is intensifying over tactics, transparency, and the proper balance between local sovereignty and federal enforcement. Essentially, a fight over the constitutional Supremacy clause, like your Civil War. Democracy dies when lawful protest is treated as equivalent to insurrection. Law enforcement isn’t there to avoid anger; it’s there to maintain order while freedom of expression and due process co-exist. Don't want to find out? Then don't FA with democratic due-process.
You should not 'commit actions that anger the people as this.
Such as freeing the slaves? Upholding the law? Mandating Desegregation with federal officers shooting the violent mob? Victim blaming didn't work out well for the Confederacy, you know.
Didn't work out well with any mob rule when they did not like the federal laws.
I do not think ICE shooting people, American citizen 'or immigrant, will gain them support.
Just wait till mob rule starts killing ICE officers. Then I suppose we can have a talk about democracy and how it should matter when enforcing laws.
Mostly puzzlement at the incompetence of ICE to shoot people.
I'd say they are very competent. They don't hesitate to meet the Fuck Around part of FAFO with the Find Out part.
When more than a handful of people think the FA part of obstructing the law is a good idea, that's insurrection and a civil war.
That will be the FO part. 1st amendment isn't a right to aid and abet the criminal lawbreakers whom ICE is arresting. FA seems to stand for more accurately in this case:
"Felony Around."
History is clear on this point: when enough people convince themselves that laws are optional, the force of law doesn’t disappear. It arrives later, harsher, and with fewer choices. People in Minnesota are a direct threat to the democracy that voted to enforce laws even in the lawless cities in the USA.
Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Niger, Mali....
It only takes one charismatic ideologue to mesmerize the unthinking and subvert the system.
That would imply that all it takes is one person to fix a nation.
Total bollocks.
Cost is always relevant. Our own solar system is littered with a very real and very ignored cosmic graveyard of actual fragile ecosystems, and not those conveniently politically created. Physics doesn’t care about narratives, and space is the ultimate cost auditor. Elon Musk is about to discover that difference firsthand.
Is that why your government encourages political attacks on Churches? Why not just outlaw religion?
USA will never be in a position to force its culture and values on any other country, because it can't protect its own culture from decay within its own borders...
Maybe at one time it could do that, never again.
USA has money and guns. Leadership of the world isn't a popularity contest.
Adaptation isn’t automatic; civilizations fail more often than they adapt. Survival is selective, not guaranteed.
Saying “we’ll adapt” skips the question of who pays the cost of adaptation. Historically, it’s the poor and politically weak.
Humans adapt to incentives faster than to environments; bad incentives produce bad adaptations.
Survival of a species doesn’t equal survival of a society; many societies vanished while humans persisted.
Ecosystems don’t compromise; politicians do, and when they do, they usually compromise reality for their own survival, not the species.
Past adaptation often followed catastrophic failure, not foresight; waiting around for adaptation to occur is asking for catastrophe.
"We will adapt” is a prediction, not a plan. Confusing the two is how disasters repeat.
Adaptation requires surplus; impoverishing societies in the name of adaptation reduces their ability to adapt.
Nature doesn’t reward good intentions; it rewards accurate understanding of tradeoffs.
History shows that groups of people who assume the inevitability of survival are usually the very ones least prepared to survive.
“Fragile ecosystem” is a political slogan, not an analysis. Nature has survived ice ages, asteroid impacts, and mass extinctions. What’s fragile is the human understanding of the relative scale and scope. Calling ecosystems ‘fragile’ confuses resilience with comfort. What’s really being protected is our preferred way of living, not nature itself.
There’s nothing mysterious happening now. No cosmic decline. No sudden moral inversion. Just a bill coming due for believing your own advertising.
“Rogue nation” has been a U.S. geopolitical label weaponized to justify real international atrocities for decades, and certainly not a "legal" standard. It’s been used to delegitimize states outside American preferences long before Trump: think Iraq (’90s), Iran (post-’79), Libya (pre-2003), Cuba (Cold War), North Korea.
American people falling for their own propaganda is just the world correcting itself.
Everything looks like a Fellini movie when a habit forms of denying reality and accepting propaganda. Totally normal for an ethnocentrist in a bubble, although, that's a whole lot of American propaganda to swallow to completely forget what America has done internationally during the past 5 decades.
accepted international norms....
There is not a single norm accepted internationally. Do you know how many nations exist?
Political labels are only useful for propaganda.
There's a huge difference between altruism and othertruism.
This is about corporate advertisement setting norms to maximize the wealth transfer. Taking women out of the kitchen and putting them into the factories. Once enough women were persuaded to enter the workforce, wages were suppressed by the surplus of workers, making a 1 income household near impossible. All by design.
No conspiracy is required to explain this. When powerful and wealthy institutions benefit from greater labor availability and higher levels of household consumption, the cultural messaging they produce through advertisements like the samples I showed you will naturally reinforce those outcomes and persist in that direction. In fact, the entire "diversity is a strength" ad campaign by the wealthy institutions was simply the logical next level after they maxed out the exploitation of persuading women to flood the labor pool. What changed was not the incentive structure, but the rhetoric. The goal remained the same: maximize labor supply and consumption while minimizing resistance from anchored, self-sufficient households. ESG was the level after that ad campaign to max out even more useless consumption supporting "green energy" under a false promise to "save the planet"
It's careful advertisement which shaped your bias.
They took farting in a church to another level.
How would those mothers be better off having a baby at a crucial moment early on in their career or late into their education?
This is exactly what I am talking about. You are coming from the premise that education at an institution is a moral obligation, despite the fact that they were objectively designed to produce factory workers for the benefit of the rich. You are also upholding the premise that working at a factory is a moral career, and motherhood is not a moral career.
The fact that you so quickly and casually accepted both of those premises is a testimony to how deep the advertisement campaigns worked in America over so many generations.
Abortion is clearly designed to funnel money from the poor to the rich. It's framed as propaganda as: "there's no way you can keep your current level of income and consumption and also have a baby, so you should choose income and consumption over having a baby." Generations of advertising have turned consumerism into a moral good above parenthood.
This keeps poor mothers in the factories and the malls while the rich get richer. When the population falls, they just get the lobbies to import new babies to eventually learn to mindlessly consume and not sacrifice and save up for the future of a family. Because when poor people stop consuming so much, save up, and become parents, it hurts the profit margins of the rich and keeps the factories empty.
That may be true, but he was still smart enough to not take the bait of a loaded question designed to incriminate him by simply answering it.
Most average people don't know what entrapment means.
Contrast all that with the effect a good-faith question can do for a candidate's election chances:
This is an actual tough question, not because it was a political "gotcha" but because Kamala struggled to find a meaningful answer.
Those types of genuine tough truth-seeking questions are the ones most people really look at and pay attention to when deciding their vote, precisely because it is NOT political theater.
The question she was asking was why if there’s nothing incriminating in the Epstein files would he not just release them. This is as basic a question as a president can get. If he can’t handle that question, he has no business being president.
It was clearly a gotcha question based on 3 faulty premises and concluding with implied guilt. Anyone on the receiving end of a "tough question" like that should respond or "be handled" with a middle finger on a good day, and worse on a bad day.
That bad-faith question relies on three false premises.
First, it assumes Donald Trump is basically a king, and that he personally controls sealed court records, grand jury material, classified docs, and third-party privacy rights. That’s not how the American legal system works.
Second, it assumes that following the legal process is an admission of guilt. In this framing, obeying courts and procedures equals “hiding something,” which turns following due process into evidence of wrongdoing. That’s a backwards premise on a good day and slander on a bad day.
Third, it assumes no victims or third parties could be harmed by dumping everything. In reality, those files will include names of victims, accusations that may be pending for future cases, sealed testimony, and also innocent minors. Releasing them for the sake of political theater on either side would cause real harm to real people. It's the most likely reason why Biden never released them.
So the premises of a typical "tough queestion"
Act like a monarch or you’re guilty
Ignore legal constraints or you’re hiding something
Pretend collateral damage doesn’t exist by violating due process
That’s not a “tough question,” unless you want to equate it to political bad-premise Bullshit drying out in an activist's basement for 6 years.
It’s not that normal people hate tough questions. It’s that they’re exhausted by activists cosplaying as truth-seekers, smuggling conclusions into the premise and then demanding credit for “holding power accountable.” That routine worked for a while. Now it just comes across as part of the usual dishonest political theater.
