Debunker

In the real world, quality of service increases when the supplier is worried about the lack of it. That can only happen when extortion goes the other way.

The alternative to big government is obvious. Nobody cares about 1 bee. A thousand bees are a big problem.

I don't know where you live, but our roads are terrible, as well as every other service. Granted isn't the word I would use. Extortion  is closer.

Questioning means you have a small chance at supporting the most extreme position, and we can't allow any of those to speak. We will all have to take one for the "team"

Is it a permanent ban if someone denies the Armenian purge?

You seem to like to talk about Trump, so it's  likelly you are a flrw (Federal Land Redistribution for Wealth ) supporter. Plenty of those types of people in America, so I have been told.

Jesus would empty his own pockets, not ask the government to do it for him.

He is angry that Trump has not achieved his flrw plan. Most Trump supporters are angry.

Stop flirting.

You are the high intellect supporter. Federal Land Redistribution for Wealth is a lofty goal. You are right to shame Trump for not following through on putting Trump towers in your grand canyons.

There is nothing inherently skillful about taxes and extortion.

So tell your government to stop being jealous of your success. We all know it is both financially and intellectually unsuccessful.

Nobody claimed flrw supporters were smart.

He is worried Trump won't approve his flrw plan.

The acronym FLRW stands for a speculative Trump-era initiative: Federal Land Realignment for Wealth. A program designed to rezone vast swaths of underutilized federal land for high-end development contracts. Trump, ever the real estate mogul, supposedly aimed to "unlock America's true potential" by turning national parks, protected reserves, and military training grounds into luxury resorts, branded golf courses, and golden Trump Towers from coast to coast. Those who support this program are often seen with flrw flags and propaganda.

Sketchy claims that the Kremlin is offering President Donald Trump a chance to resurrect a Trump Tower project in Moscow are speculative at best and lack any concrete verification. While Trump’s past business dealings in Russia have been well-documented, those efforts were shelved years ago and never materialized. Reviving such a venture now, during his second presidency and in the middle of ongoing global tensions, would raise massive ethical, political, and legal concerns. It’s difficult to imagine any serious effort to push this forward without triggering intense domestic backlash and further straining U.S.–Russia relations.

This supposed offer does not represent a real diplomatic or financial opportunity and ignores the complex realities of global sanctions, political optics, and logistical feasibility. No credible evidence supports that Trump is currently involved in or even considering such a project. Until verified by multiple, authoritative sources, this story reads more like a distraction designed to provoke controversy rather than a legitimate policy or business development. Without substance, it amounts to little more than rumor and gossip dressed up as actual relevance.

Bringing up Slovenia every time your intelligence is challenged isn’t a rebuttal, it’s a deflection. Whether it’s invoking Slovenia’s GDP, its education system, or cherry-picked historical trivia, none of it addresses the substance of the argument or critique being made. Using an unrelated country as a shield doesn’t demonstrate insight; it reveals insecurity. Intelligent discourse requires engagement with ideas, not a reflexive retreat into obscure national references to sidestep valid points.

Obsessing over Slovenia in this context is a textbook example of intellectual misdirection. It’s not about Slovenia itself, it’s about avoiding accountability for weak arguments. If your response to being called out on logical fallacies or misinformed claims is to start a lecture about Ljubljana or the Slovene language, you're not defending your position, you’re proving you don’t have one. If IQ is the topic, stick to reasoning and evidence. Geography won’t raise your score.

Well said.

It would help those trying to destroy America like the op.

The statement that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte “publicly pleaded” with the Trump administration to reverse halted weapons shipments to Ukraine oversimplifies the situation and injects misleading tones into complex diplomatic and military decisions. While Donald Trump is indeed president as of 2025, decisions on arms transfers involve multiple layers of government and military logistics, not just a single executive directive. The pause on shipments like 155mm artillery rounds and Patriot missiles likely reflects real concerns about dwindling U.S. stockpiles and the need to balance support for Ukraine with readiness for broader US national defense, not a politically motivated ploy.

You need to stop paying taxes to separate the government from the economy.

You are debunked

People love to claim that AI sex robots are the answer to loneliness, sexual frustration, and even public health issues like STIs. Sure, a robot can’t give you chlamydia, but it also can’t give you love, support, or real emotional connection. That “no STDs” argument is a pretty weak flex when you consider that what many people are really suffering from isn’t disease, but deep, chronic loneliness. And ironically, replacing human interaction with machines may just make that worse. Instead of pushing people toward healing or real intimacy, it risks trapping them in a feedback loop of emotional detachment and fantasy.

Let’s not sugarcoat it: there’s a growing mental health crisis linked to isolation and lack of meaningful relationships. AI sex robots might be “safe” physically, but psychologically? Not so much. Interacting with a programmed doll that mimics affection can actually deepen feelings of rejection and worthlessness when the user inevitably realizes it’s all fake. And for someone already dealing with depression or low self-worth, this disconnect can be crushing, even triggering suicidal thoughts. We're not talking sci-fi hypotheticals; this is the kind of emotional damage that can come from mistaking simulation for real connection.

And no, these robots won’t magically fix trauma or make someone “ready” for a real relationship. They don’t teach empathy, patience, or communication, they just reinforce the idea that intimacy is something you can buy and program. The more we normalize replacing human touch with cold algorithms, the further we drift from the core of what actually makes us feel seen, loved, and alive. If anything, this tech risks becoming an emotional crutch that breaks people down more than it builds them up.

It is okay.

While it’s fine to support Zohran Mamdani’s political ideas, claiming he could help achieve a “more perfect union” as President ignores two major problems. First, he’s constitutionally ineligible. He was born in Uganda, and Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen. That’s a hard stop, no matter how compelling someone finds his platform. Second, there’s no track record of him actually unifying anything. As a New York State Assembly member, his influence has been mostly limited to a specific political niche, not broad coalition-building. Elevating someone to the highest office in the country should be based on demonstrated leadership and constitutional eligibility, not wishful thinking on ideological alignment alone.

I am here.

The idea that our lives are meaningless because they're just a “blip on the cosmic radar” confuses scale with significance. Yes, the universe is vast and we occupy a tiny sliver of time and space, but that doesn’t automatically render our experiences pointless. Meaning isn't something the universe hands out based on size or duration; it’s something we create through relationships, actions, and ideas. History, art, justice, love, none of these require cosmic grandeur to matter. Just because we’re small in the physical sense doesn’t mean we’re insignificant in the human one. If anything, the fact that we’re aware of our smallness and still seek purpose is what gives our lives weight. The universe might not care, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

The claim that Melania Trump is secretly a Russian spy is a baseless conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to support it. Pointing to a brief conversation she had with Vladimir Putin during a G-20 dinner as “proof” is flimsy at best. Diplomatic small talk at international events is standard protocol, especially for First Ladies who often engage in soft diplomacy. The idea that such an interaction indicates espionage ignores the basic realities of global politics and overestimates the significance of casual public exchanges. Moreover, U.S. intelligence agencies, who have every reason and the tools to detect foreign operatives, have never raised any concerns about Melania Trump in this regard. Reducing serious geopolitical issues to gossip-level speculation only undermines informed discussion and distracts from legitimate critiques or concerns one might have about the Trump administration.

While it's true that Marx wrote for newspapers in his 20s, portraying him as simply a journalist from the start oversimplifies his path. He initially pursued an academic career, earning a doctorate in philosophy, but turned to journalism after being barred from academia due to political reasons. The claim that he wrote for "radical newspapers" in both Cologne and Paris also glosses over important differences. Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne started as a moderate liberal paper and only became more radical under Marx’s editorship. Referring to his philosophical circle as "liberal-minded" misrepresents the reality. Marx was aligned with the Young Hegelians, who were radical critics of religion and the state, far beyond classical liberalism. While he first met Engels briefly in 1842, their real collaboration didn’t begin until 1844, when Marx was 26. Lastly, suggesting Engels convinced Marx of the revolutionary role of the working class gives too much credit to one side; both thinkers influenced each other deeply, and Marx had already begun exploring the idea of class struggle before their partnership solidified. The development of Marxist theory was a joint and evolving effort, not a one-sided conversion.