I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. But if you are from Sweden, I think you should understand exactly what I'm talking about. Does bringing hundreds of thousands of people who don't speak your language or share your same culture enhance Sweden or not?
Autos Chinese EV giant BYD outpaces Tesla with annual sales of more than $100 billion ___________________________ China is already the #1 in EV cars. EV car is considered low tech. The US cannot compete with China on cost. Better for for Elon Musk to focus on high tech thing like making space ships to the moon, Mars, Jupiter, asteroid and beyond. Not worth spending time focusing on vandalism on Tsla properties.
biden crime family? Diversify your reading. The republicans did a proper investigation on Biden. Their conclusion was that Jared and don jr would be convicted for worse than anything Hunter did. Usaid was 99percent good. The cia uses all sorts of things to hide their activities. Save the children is finished. Hundreds of thousands of kids in Africa will not get malaria medicine this year. Thousands will die. Trumps not going to replace the USD with crypto. He can’t control interest rates to prop up the market. Nor can he deficit spend to keep the US economy strong under his watch. He’s propping up crypto so he can personally continue his scam. “he might be corrupt and he might be selling America down the river, but he keeps the trains on time”
Europe is adding immigrants because their population is in decline. Merkel at least saw this and knew Germany needs workers in order to maintain a strong economy. The only available population is from the Mideast and Asia. China and Japan are fucked because their populations are in decline but they can’t fix it thanks to inherent xenophobia.
The question will be did the power structure change in a positive way. Challenging the constitution on a daily basis is certainly not positive. Every day we hear this is “unprecedented” “never seen this in my whole life” . Let’s take him going after law firms for example. And that’s just .000001% of the outrages things he’s done in less than 1/4th of his term.
The bullshit just never stops.. Outside the GOP echo chamber, in the realm of facts, data and evidence: Prompt: "Perform a comparative analysis of U.S. corruption between Democrats and Republicans. Return a plot of indictments vs convictions. Create a probability matrix" Comparative Analysis of Criminal Indictments and Convictions in U.S. Political Administrations (1961-2016) The data reveals a striking disparity in criminal indictments and convictions between Democratic and Republican administrations over a 56-year period. When examining equal timeframes (28 years each) spanning from Kennedy to Obama, Republican administrations accumulated 120 indictments with 89 convictions (74% conviction rate), while Democratic administrations had only 3 indictments resulting in 1 conviction (33% conviction rate). This analysis examines the numerical differences, explores potential explanations for this disparity, and discusses the implications for evaluating political corruption in American governance. Data Overview and Methodology The analysis examines criminal indictments and convictions across ten presidential administrations from 1961 to 2016, providing an equivalent 28-year period for each party. The dataset includes officials who served in executive branch positions during these administrations and faced criminal charges related to their official duties. Data Sources and Collection The data compilation includes indictments, convictions, and conviction rates for each administration2. The specific administrations covered are: Democratic administrations: Barack Obama (2009-2016): 0 indictments, 0 convictions Bill Clinton (1993-2001): 2 indictments, 1 conviction Jimmy Carter (1977-1981): 1 indictment, 0 convictions Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969): 0 indictments, 0 convictions John F. Kennedy (1961-1963): 0 indictments, 0 convictions Republican administrations: George W. Bush (2001-2009): 16 indictments, 16 convictions George H.W. Bush (1989-1993): 1 indictment, 1 conviction Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): 26 indictments, 16 convictions Gerald Ford (1974-1977): 1 indictment, 1 conviction Richard Nixon (1969-1974): 76 indictments, 55 convictions This methodology creates a balanced comparison that accounts for equal time periods under each party's leadership1. Statistical Representation The data was visualized through two primary representations: A comparative bar chart displaying total indictments versus convictions for each party A probability matrix showing the likelihood of conviction following indictment for officials from each party These visualizations highlight both the absolute numbers and the proportional differences in criminal proceedings between the two parties' administrations. Quantitative Analysis of Indictments and Convictions Comparative Magnitude The numerical disparity between the parties is substantial. Republican administrations experienced 40 times more indictments (120 vs. 3) and 89 times more convictions (89 vs. 1) than Democratic administrations during the examined period1. This represents one of the most significant partisan differences in any quantifiable metric of government conduct. Distribution Across Administrations The distribution of indictments and convictions across individual administrations reveals important patterns: Democratic administrations: Three administrations (Obama, Johnson, Kennedy) had zero indictments and zero convictions Clinton had 2 indictments and 1 conviction Carter had 1 indictment and 0 convictions Republican administrations: Nixon's administration alone accounted for 76 indictments and 55 convictions Reagan's administration had 26 indictments and 16 convictions George W. Bush's administration had 16 indictments and 16 convictions Ford and George H.W. Bush each had 1 indictment and 1 conviction Even excluding the Nixon administration, Republican administrations still accumulated 44 indictments and 34 convictions, substantially exceeding the Democratic total24. Conviction Rates Analysis The probability matrix provides additional insight into what happens after an indictment occurs: Democratic officials had a 33% conviction rate (1 conviction from 3 indictments) Republican officials had a 74% conviction rate (89 convictions from 120 indictments) This indicates that not only were Republican officials indicted more frequently, but those indicted were also more likely to be convicted. The high conviction rate suggests that the prosecutions were generally based on substantial evidence. Notable Cases and Scandals Major Republican Administration Scandals The Nixon administration's Watergate scandal produced the highest number of indictments and convictions of any administration. The scandal resulted in 69 government officials being charged, with 48 convicted or pleading guilty10. Notable convictions included: Attorney General John Mitchell, convicted of perjury White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice Vice President Spiro Agnew, who resigned after being convicted of tax fraud stemming from bribery charges The Reagan administration witnessed several significant scandals: The Iran-Contra affair resulted in 14 officials being charged and 11 convicted, including high-ranking national security officials6 The HUD scandal led to 18 indictments and 16 convictions for fraud and corruption in the Department of Housing and Urban Development10 Operation Ill Wind uncovered corruption in defense contracting, resulting in convictions of several officials including Assistant Secretary of the Navy Melvyn Paisley10 The George W. Bush administration's 16 indictments and convictions included cases related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame case6. Democratic Administration Cases The Clinton administration had two indictments with one conviction. The most prominent case was Webster Hubbell, Associate Attorney General, who was convicted of mail fraud and tax evasion related to the Whitewater investigation6. Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was indicted for accepting illegal gifts but was acquitted. The Carter administration had one indictment that did not result in a conviction, while the Obama, Johnson, and Kennedy administrations had no indictments of executive branch officials26. Contextual Analysis and Interpretations Historical and Political Context Several factors might contribute to the disparity in indictment and conviction rates: Enforcement Priorities: Different administrations and Attorneys General may have different approaches to investigating and prosecuting public corruption. Oversight Intensity: The intensity of Congressional oversight and media scrutiny may vary across administrations. Institutional Factors: Organizational structures, decision-making processes, and internal controls may differ between administrations. Post-Watergate Effects: Reforms following the Watergate scandal increased scrutiny of executive branch conduct. Comparative Patterns in Legislative Branch While executive branch corruption shows a clear partisan disparity, corruption in the legislative branch appears more evenly distributed between parties. The search results indicate numerous corruption cases involving members of Congress from both parties59. For example, the Abscam FBI sting operation in 1980 resulted in convictions of both Democratic and Republican legislators for bribery and corruption5. More recently, Democratic senators like Bob Menendez have faced corruption charges, suggesting that legislative branch corruption crosses party lines9. Recent Developments More recent cases outside the study period include: The indictment of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez on corruption charges in 2015 and again in 20239 The indictment of Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams on federal corruption charges in 20247 Corruption charges against Democratic Representatives Henry Cuellar and Cori Bush3 These cases suggest that corruption investigations continue across party lines, though they fall outside the timeframe of the main analysis. Methodological Limitations and Considerations Several important limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings: Measurement Constraints Definition of Corruption: This analysis uses criminal indictments and convictions as the primary metric, which may not capture all forms of unethical behavior or conflicts of interest that fall short of criminal conduct. Sample Size Limitations: The low number of Democratic indictments (3) makes statistical comparisons of conviction rates less reliable and more susceptible to random variation. Scope Considerations: The analysis focuses on executive branch officials and does not include corruption at state and local levels or in other branches of government, where patterns may differ. Contextual Factors Historical Evolution: Legal standards, enforcement resources, and investigative techniques have evolved over the 56-year period examined. Structural Differences: Administrations differ in size, structure, and operational procedures, which may influence corruption opportunities or detection rates. Potential Bias: The analysis cannot definitively establish whether enforcement decisions were influenced by partisan factors that might affect the likelihood of investigation or prosecution. Conclusion The quantitative analysis reveals a substantial disparity in criminal indictments and convictions between Democratic and Republican administrations from 1961 to 2016. With equal time periods examined (28 years each), Republican administrations accumulated 120 indictments and 89 convictions compared to 3 indictments and 1 conviction for Democratic administrations1. The data also shows a higher conviction rate for Republican administration officials (74%) compared to Democratic officials (33%), though the small sample size for Democrats limits the statistical significance of this comparison. These findings support the assertion that "Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations" when measured specifically by criminal indictments and convictions of executive branch officials during the studied time period1. The magnitude of difference—40 times more indictments and 89 times more convictions—represents a significant pattern that warrants continued scholarly attention. However, this analysis represents only one dimension of political corruption, and a comprehensive understanding would require examination of additional metrics, time periods, and contextual factors beyond the scope of this report. The recent corruption cases involving Democratic officials also suggest that neither party is immune to corruption issues, even if historical patterns show significant differences in prevalence. Citations: https://rantt.com/gop-admins-had-38-times-more-criminal-convictions-than-democrats-1961-2016 https://sakai.unc.edu/access/conten...ctions, prison sentences of federal officials https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/politics/doj-republicans-democrats-what-matters/index.html http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2023/11/19/republicans-in-the-presidency-criminal-dealings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/...ictions-of-biden-white-house-appointees-zero/ https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/26/politics/eric-adams-trump-what-matters/index.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...undup-senators-menendez-indicted/70932038007/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...al_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses Answer from Perplexity: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/3f5c87a6-7902-46cb-8071-43ec45e0fe60?utm_source=copy_output
Fair enough, I certainly haven't done this. The interest rate is a total scam. I know the Fed only sets the overnight rate and the market sets all the other rates, but all of this is based on fiat ponzi funny money. If we keep using fiat money, there will never be a free market for interest rates or anything else. I fullly believe deep down that the only way to solve the biggest problems in the world is to fix the money, and this start with taking the control of the money away from the government. Imagine what happens when we let governments control anything. If they controlled food production, we would all be starving. It governments control science, we got a glimpse of what would happen given the Covid bullshit. But the government has total control over money, and I do believe it will end within a decade. The population will choose a money that the government can't control, and then free markets will be allowed to do their thing. So perhaps Trump is doing all this for his own personal gain, but if this accelerates adoption, I'm all for it. The people who will suffer that you mention above is a very sad thing. But how long can anyone really expect the US to foot the bill for all of this? The US is at the point where being the global superpower has actually left it weak now. Its can't continue doing this, so it needs to pull back from all the spending and policing. Just like people need to learn that they need to solve their own problems, countries have to learn this as well. And lets not even forget that the US isn't helping the world from the perspective of altruism. The US had much to gain. So I think the US leaving everyone else alone will eventually be a very good thing for everyone else.
Demographics is a big problem, but once again, this cannot be managed simply by always growing. Its like the fiat ponzi scheme which always requires growth at any cost. It isn't sustainable. If a country keep importing young people to take care of the old, those young people eventually get old as well, and then you need even more. There was always going to be one generation that got screwed, and that generation happens now. Look at real estate in the US. You always need the next generation to buy houses from the old people. The boomers are siting on vast RE gains, but the next generation cannot afford million dollar homes. That wealth will evaporate when the children of the dead boomers realize there aren't enough people around to buy million dollar homes. So the only solution is to figure out how to do more with less. The world is actually trending towards deflation if you let natural forces play out, especially when it comes to money. Technology should make prices cheaper, but everything gets crazy more expensive. The world needs a currency that doesn't require continual inflation. (which of course is Bitcoin!) But likewise, the population needs to work from the perspective of sustainability, and not always requiring a larger and younger population. For the most part, all of the immigrants coming in don't have the skills necessary to successfully integrate, nor do they want to. Many cost the system more than what they contribute, and thinking a country needs this is just backwards in my opinion.
Population growing is literally how you create economic growth. Real estate prices are not solved by letting your population shrink. It’s solved by bringing in laborers to build more housing. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is like calling startup a Ponzi scheme because it grows and hires more people. second, your argument about immigrants is wrong. There’s lots of menial jobs that whites don’t want to do. I have a factory in a very maga area and the HR there reminisce about the days they have Vietnamese workers. No meth heads. And no attitude. And you say “ALL of the immigrants.” Who is the CEO of Apple, Microsoft, AMD, and several other companies. Inflation is a construct because deflation is really dangerous. Who will buy a new iPhone today when the new iPhone tomorrow will be 20percent cheaper? thirdly, this post has nothing to do with corruption.