I think it’s quite simple, really. In the absence of truth comes speculation. It’s not important who the “they” is and is irrelevant to the topic being challenged. What is important is to find a path to truth that can regain the public’s trust. “Extreme” transparency will now be required in order to regain that trust. As always the pendulum swings to great lengths and effectiveness.

Great article. The pundits that are “confused” about why all this is happening need to read this. Thanks for posting.

I’m really disappointed in Starmers response. Reminds me a lot of Never Chamberlain.

This is disgusting.

Someone was favouring extra expensive contracts with private medical contractors.

Good point, hadn’t thought of that lol.

That’s just trump trying to swing the vote toward pp. It’s so obvious I think/hope the only people stupid enough to fall for it are the ones who already vote conservative.

Damn you!

Just for that I won’t be reading this post.

A list of those beers please. Am happy to chip in! Cheers

If the choice is having them help your “enemy” or subjecting them to personal trauma, which do you think they’ll choose?

His thoughts are definitely not mainstream and in this case he’s giving too much credit to a healthy diet, but damn if I don’t agree with some of the things he says. I’d love to know the truth of his sources. Here’s an interview he did before the election.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/-we-re-living-in-a-weird-period-of-history-full-rfk-jr-interview-190800453748

How long before they’re not allowed to leave?

This is what we call “hedging your bets”.

It cannot be countered at all, no matter what you do with capitalism. It can be slightly mitigated in order to provide time to adapt, which should include substantial reductions in population.

The title was a bit confusing. I think your point is that it should also be taught at parochial schools. There is no doubt this is the case. The thing that gets me is that is comes down to what public (or private to some extent) educations goal should be. I think that schools should teach all topics as it is important to expose kids to all aspects of life and let their passions lead them to a satisfying path. Others think that parents should have more control in restricting what topics are covered. I think there is a way to honour both approaches but there is conflict in its organization.

Thanks. I wasn’t aware of the specific mechanism in our trade agreements. No government should be compromising their right to make public policy.

I’m not a bigot at all. I’m only questioning how practical mass immigration is in the modern age.

Unfortunately and as with everything, the actions of a few cause a reaction that affects so many. The rise of the right has been driven primarily by immigration of people looking for the promise of democratic freedom and opportunity. These incidents are used to prevent this migration entirely.

Is this right? Should people have a right to migrate in hopes of a better life? Some you might identify as far left don’t feel boarders should exist at all. Others believe that borders should be sealed and only people who would benefit the society within should enter (sadly based on the colour of their skin as well). The obvious answer is that the best practice probably falls somewhere in the middle.

I have two takes on this. The first is that immigration should be ended as we are entering the end of our societies ability to support existing populations with food and shelter, due to climate change. The second is that regardless of circumstances, never flee your country if you don’t like what’s going on. Fight to change it, even if you have to die trying. That is what I plan to do.

I’m a lazy, not so bright contrarian who doesn’t know the details enough to have formed a sensible defense. What I do know is that I have a right to express my beliefs through my patronage and I’m currently being inhibited in that effort by the intentional obfuscation of the information I need.