Trump probably thinks he’s above the rules, so of course he’d want to keep the solid gold microphone Xi gave him with the plaque that says “The Greatest Speeches Ever.”

He probably thinks it would look great on his desk.

Humiliation? Like he’s capable of it. He tweeted they were dumb as he left. As far as he’s concerned, he won.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

“Politician Ignites Explosive Firestorm With Routine Decision as Critics Slam Controversial Move, Outrage Erupts Nationwide, Panic Surges Over Alleged Hidden Agenda and Demands for Answers Detonate Across a Shocked Public”

Translation:

“A politician carried out a routine administrative action. A small number of opponents criticized the choice publicly. Some people posted complaints online. Nothing about the situation indicates any misconduct.”

This argument persists because it is easier to believe that everything is rigged than to engage with the complexity of political institutions. It provides an emotionally satisfying shortcut, but it collapses under even a minimal amount of empirical scrutiny.

I’m one of the few who has had it at the top for as long as I can remember. It absolutely infuriated me to find out the feature had been removed.

The measles outbreak earlier this year? It’s still happening and getting worse.

So glad they fired everyone at the CDC. /s

The fact that you need a /s makes me very sad.

Yuuuuuup! One of the key parts of planning policies is evaluating its strength in court. SCOTUS gave the executive branch a free pass to just try anything with zero consequences. Why bother asking if something is legal when it literally doesn’t matter if it isn’t.

Yes, really. The HAC/UnitedHealthcare obesity paper shows that diet is one of the root drivers of the epidemic, and even recommends employer interventions like making healthy, non-processed food more available and addressing social drivers of health. Skipping meals doesn’t mean obesity isn’t real, it often means people are forced into poor nutrition or cheap calories because of cost and access, which are major confounding factors.

They don’t though. They want it shut down, they just don’t want to be blamed for it.

Your logic is precise and efficiently processed. An upvote of approval has been allocated.

My wife came to me saying her laptop wasn’t working. She was on it last night. It was forcing a Windows account login. Shift-10 disabled so I couldn’t bypass.

Microsoft can straight fuck itself after this. Trying to brick an 8 year old laptop with a local account. Fuck that noise. My wife is gonna have to learn Linux.

It’s so much more effective when you keep things as neutral as possible. I will often ask it to tear apart my argument as though I am my opponent and use its tendency to align with the user against itself.

“This is not the pro-life party, folks.”

It never was.

You’re clearly very passionate, so I thought I’d offer you a bit of friendly advice. Not about the content of what you wrote, that’s a whole different conversation, but about how you’re saying it.

What you’ve posted is a textbook example of something called the fallacy of verbosity. That’s when someone overwhelms the reader with so much information, so many accusations, claims, and ideas, rapid-fire and without evidence, that it feels like you’re trying to convince through sheer volume rather than reason. It’s not persuasive. It’s exhausting.

You’re not giving people a chance to digest or respond to a single thought before you’re already three topics down the road. It doesn’t feel like a conversation, it feels like a rant. And that’s likely why you’re getting downvoted. Honestly, I doubt many people are even reading it all the way through. It’s not necessarily that they’re rejecting your worldview (though some might), but the way it’s presented comes across as incoherent, aggressive, and conspiratorial.

To someone who already agrees with you, maybe this kind of intensity resonates. But to anyone outside that bubble, even someone trying to listen with an open mind, it reads like shouting in a crowded room. No paragraph breaks, no sources, no structure… just a flood of unverified claims, many of which sound reckless or even dangerous without context.

If your goal is to actually reach people, to get them thinking, to change minds, you’ve got to meet them where they are. Speak with clarity, not chaos. Choose a point. Back it up. Invite discussion, not submission.

Right now, you’re not inviting anyone in. You’re just pushing people away.

How long do you think the Supreme Court is gonna wait to wipe their ass with constitution again and overturn the ruling? Any bets? I say about 2 weeks.

One button. Endless possibilities.