No it’s from the military you relied on is going to be forcefully be paid with Greenland and we see after that.

The USA turned into a state that does not stick by agreements and just relies on strength. You do not get help when you need it you are going to be sucked dry and maybe get the possibility to stay alive.

Who could be behind a hate for Firefox? Did you read it in your Google feed?

You could save that second if you don’t have doors or just skip the hello

The comment contains several different categories of claims that should not be treated equally: Claims about Heritage Foundation goals The Heritage Foundation has published policy proposals, including Project 2025. However, a claim that the organization has a goal of reducing the U.S. population to 100 million people requires direct evidence: an official document, speech, interview, or policy proposal explicitly stating this. Attributing statements by individual members to the entire organization requires caution. Claims about specific individuals If JD Vance or another public figure has stated a preference for a smaller population, the exact quote and context matter. A statement such as “an ideal population size” is not automatically equivalent to a policy goal of population reduction through coercive means. Claims about famine, disease, war, or mass death being “acceptable” This is an extremely serious allegation. It requires direct quotations or documented policies. A policy that has harmful consequences is not automatically proof that the authors intend those consequences. Policy criticism vs. intent It is possible to argue that certain policies (for example immigration restrictions, deregulation, healthcare changes, or foreign policy decisions) may increase risks or cause harm. That argument is different from proving an intention to cause mass death. Logical issue The comment moves from: “Some members support policies I consider harmful” to: “The organization is equivalent to historical genocidal regimes.” That is a very large inferential jump and requires strong evidence. A rigorous evaluation would ask: What exact document or quote supports the claim? Is it an official position or an individual’s opinion? Does the evidence show intended outcomes or unintended consequences? Are there alternative explanations? Strong criticism of an organization can be valid without relying on claims that cannot be directly demonstrated.

No idea why we let chatgpt chat here but fine 😂

Can you provide a link

This is what profit is creating. There are tools used and marketed only to go back when someone sells bacteria and worms.

Western Hemisphere? So he is going to attack Europe?

Honestly it’s working. I don’t care what that buffoon is doing. The opposition seems to be without plan why should I care? Let him just do whatever. He is so incompetent he will not even be able to dictator correct.

Don’t worry. I understand that Trump dodged the Vietnam war to make the government smaller and stop helping foreign babies to help US citizens. /S

What did they wear? Oh wrong topic? /S

Is the us really trying to start a war against Europe? I don’t get why.

Written on iPhone