Form: Mini Essay

  • Paternal responsibility in recognition of inequality of ability and knowledge is

    Paternal responsibility in recognition of inequality of ability and knowledge is neither arrogance nor pride – it’s civic responsibility. What we previously called ‘paternalism’: taking the responsibility for others who are less able to do so, given that the differences between sexes and classes consists of capacity to bear increasing responsibility for time and complexity by suppressing impulse and instead apply systematizing (reason), and paying the cost of truth-before-face regardless of resistance by those less able.

    Reply addressees: @JasonR_Badger @Markleaver10 @scottjla @gspeth @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-15 17:04:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857469671697690624

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857460835796365558

  • “BUT BUT BUT TRUMP DIDN”T PAY CONTRACTORS!!!” I have some rather deep knowledge

    “BUT BUT BUT TRUMP DIDN”T PAY CONTRACTORS!!!”

    I have some rather deep knowledge of the commercial construction industry as I worked on designing software for the multinationals. It’s a low profit, high risk, conflict, corruption, and cheating permeated business.

    Guess: What percent of profits are determined by the outcome of lawsuits between the various contractors, developers, and financiers involved?

    Why would you imagine that there were NOT disputes between the various contractors on large scale developments?

    Why do you assume that the simplicity of your little world of experience has anything to do with the complexity of such contentious experience? It’s like the simple mom who assumes the society reflects the simplicity of the family, or the simple dad that assumes the economy reflects the simplicity of his personal finances or his small business.

    Especially when you’re dealing with unions and governments and bribes and attempts at cheating and discounts, or poorly done work, or material substitutions etc?

    LET ME HELP YOU
    In large scale commercial construction projects, lawsuits between contractors, developers, and financiers can significantly impact profits due to the complexity and high stakes involved. While there isn’t a definitive statistic available from the provided search results that directly answers this question, we can infer from general industry insights:

    Cost Overruns and Disputes: It’s known that construction projects often face cost overruns due to various reasons including litigation over delays, change orders, or disputes regarding project specifications or contracts. According to some data, a considerable amount of project costs can escalate due to these disputes, which indirectly affects profit margins.

    Profit Margins in Construction: Typically, profit margins in construction can be quite low, often in the range of 1.4% to 3.5% for general contractors and subcontractors respectively. Given these narrow margins, any significant legal battles can substantially alter profitability.

    Impact of Lawsuits: From a practical perspective, if a lawsuit results in penalties, delay costs, or settlement fees, these could easily consume a large portion of the profit margin, sometimes even leading to losses rather than profits. However, guessing a specific percentage:

    A reasonable estimate might be that lawsuits could influence anywhere from 10% to 30% of the profit in large-scale commercial construction projects. This estimate considers:
    – The frequency and impact of legal disputes in construction.
    – The potential for legal costs to exceed initial project budgets, thereby eating into profit margins.
    – This range accounts for both the direct legal fees and the indirect costs like project delays and rework, but it’s worth noting this is a speculative guess based on general industry trends rather than specific data from the search results provided.

    SImple version: profitability is determined by the outcome of legal disputes between the parties.

    That’s why you don’t go into that. business unless you came up through that business. It’s also why the best companies ‘tie down’ the best contractors in each field and seek to keep them busy so that they have access to them. If you ever watched the bidding on a major construction process it would make the absurdity of political voting look simple by comparison.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @arianhod_o @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-15 02:06:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857243857894952961

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857238306951671962

  • We’re Creating A Science of Decidability and Applying it to Law, Government, Eco

    We’re Creating A Science of Decidability and Applying it to Law, Government, Economy, Society, and Family.
    But we’re working in the USA that has the most sophisticated system of rule of law in the world by far (despite the left’s attempts to undermine it for more than a century).

    Let’s discuss: (Excerpt from a conversation with @NoahRevoy on Tuesday.)

    I assume that, well, we’re just trying to make a science of decidability. One that results in a science of cooperation at scale. Meaning law, government, economy, society, family. The U.S. Is the furthest along in the decidability curve because our constitution is just a system of empirically deriving the will of the states – it requires concurrency of the people upward, not one of governing downward. And so the U.S. is the place where we can probably make the biggest change fastest and then spread it outwards.

    But that’s not what everyone hears. I completely get it. They can’t tell the difference between a science and a good. So they think we’re recommending what to do rather than a system of understanding the optimum and the trade offs that come from variation from that optimum – variations that suit the needs of the individual polity. We have different demographics, strategies, traditions, norms, values, institutions, degrees of technological, informal, and formal development.

    The USA, the Five Eyes (Anglosphere plus Japan), are islands, not continentals – part of the world island of eurasia. The USA is Strategically, Militarily, Economically autarkic (independent). So the USA has more choice in its self determination as well as a more sophisticated system of government (for a federation) to do it with.

    But that doesn’t apply to everyone. European countries are all relatively weak. They focused on an economic union first instead of a military and strategic. (french manipulation is as deep as russian). Aside from france who wisely choose nuclear power, to maintain her african empire (despite tolerating muslim immigration), and to maintain at least some ability to project power, every other country is effectively militarily incompetent (germany, eastern europe) or militarily exceptional but small in population (Sweden, Finland).

    So, what is a small central european country’s application of our theory? How are they going to apply it themselves? Or how could they? Or better, rather than prescribing is to Tell people, if we do this, we’ll get this. If we do that, we’ll get that. Not to lie about it or ignore the externalities, or pretend that sovereignty exists by other than the barrel of a gun, and interdependence of trade.

    I would advise suggesting models for France and Germany as well, even though they’re larger and have a lot more power. What does it mean and what’s the best way to use that for your own country’s benefit?

    Because I always thought we were trying to make this as value neutral as possible, but obviously being made in the U.S. as its focus because the US is the most advanced rule of law polity (Federation). We can move the needle the most easily. And spread out from there.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-15 00:49:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857224322366291968

  • UNDERSTANDING TRUMP’S STRATEGY – FOR THOSE ON THE LEFT Given the sex differences

    UNDERSTANDING TRUMP’S STRATEGY – FOR THOSE ON THE LEFT
    Given the sex differences in responsibility, agency, and risk tolerance, compounded by the difference in possibility of agency and responsibility in urban density vs rural, the left (you) persuade and manipulate by feminine means, and the right (the opposition) persuade manipulate and threaten by masculine means. These are both means of dominance expression using sex differences in cognition. The feminine left uses victimization and oppression narratives, and the masculine right uses competition and conspiracy narratives. Both use hyperbole (exaggeration) with the feminine left (you) engaging in more magical thinking and the right using more intertemporal warning. These are both the equivalent of animal calls – threats and warnings.
    I am closer in commercial and political experience to Trump than the common man (and certainly woman), and I am more conscious of the immorality of the classes as they deviate from the working middle and upper middle. Plus more conscious of the corruption in academy, state, media, financial, and especially legal populations. And have sufficient experience as someone with wealth and influence that I know the effect of wealth and status on the hypergamous tendencies of women to seize every possible opportunity – and how men of agency make use of it.
    So when you have wealth influence and status, and you fight a world of sexual, social, private, financial, and political corruption, this teaches you to negotiate by masculine means – unpredictability, baits, threats – a kind of misdirection that is used by different means by both cognitive sexes.
    This is no different from the left’s use of undermining canceling rallying, shaming, psychologizing. It is just the masculine version of the same strategy – using what cognitive abilities you have with the experience you have, to obtain what you want.
    I see Trump as heroic because I’ve had to act as equally heroically to achieve moral ends in the face of overwhelming immoral opposition in both public and private sectors. As well as in my work in Intelligence and government.
    Trump is hypermoral in pursuit of ends, just as the left believes it is hypermoral in pursuit of ends. The fact that he uses tools you don’t have to achieve ends you can’t, and which are the opposite cognitively sexual means of doing so, is just a lack of your understanding of sex and therefore political differences in achieving ends.
    As usual, the right can comprehend the left, but they believe you are immature, naive and foolish. As usual the left cannot comprehend the right believing they are evil. Neither is true. Both groups are just expressions of sex differences in cognition agency and experience.
    Humans are quite simple if you know about the thirty or so basic principles that explain all of human behavior.
    The most important of which are those I’ve listed here.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-14 15:47:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857088047986196480

  • THE 2020 ELECTION CONTROVERSY VS “THE NARRATIVE” At the time, because the court

    THE 2020 ELECTION CONTROVERSY VS “THE NARRATIVE”
    At the time, because the court would not intervene, Trump and a very large (and still reluctant) percentage of voters believed that the election had been stolen because of the late night data shift in votes in key districts. Upon full investigation it was an effect of ballot harvesting overwhelming the staffs and their ability to input data. So it was rationally suspicious. And it led a significant population to show up on January 6th. Had the court simply ordered an audit everyone would have been happy. We did the audit. It turned out reasonably legit (if you assume ballot harvesting is legitimate) and the case was made.

    In other words, Trump voters, and Trump were of the belief that the election had been stolen and that the court needed to stall and force an investigation. This was not an irrational belief given the evidence at the time in particular the involvement of Dominion Voting and their machines. And the political regions in which the behavior was observed. My opinion was that it was statistically impossible for those votes to have changed that late at night. However, it was possible because of the vote harvesting and the boxes of harvested votes that were used for the first time. It was the most suspicious way of doing such things, and conservatives were against vote harvesting specifically because they were aware of the possibility of this tactic being used to skew the results.

    To say the case for the legitimacy of the 2020 election was made sufficiently in advance to achieve the legal term ‘settlement’ (public perception of legitimacy) then you are simply in error as demonstrated by the vast evidence of conservative voter behavior in at the time. It’s not an opinion that people weren’t convinced. It’s just your bias and conviction despite the evidence.

    The court was afraid to intervene because the court believes the entire government other than the court, and increasingly the military, has lost sufficient legitimacy that they must preserve what they have, while at the same time reversing mid to late 20th lawfare and activism that abused the court, because we have been far too close to our cold civil war turning hot.

    Unfortunately, they probably should have taken the risk. But, as expected, the public reaction to those events combined with the past four years caused the radical change in our electors and their strategy, fully reforming the republican party as an evolution of the Tea Party under Trump, as a populist middle and working class majority, that broke the race-marxist strategy of causing racial division.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @RaveCozensHardy


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 01:07:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856504054874288131

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856500492311871541

  • WHY THEY STILL SEPARATE CHILDREN AND WHY THERE ARE CAGES REASONING The policy of

    WHY THEY STILL SEPARATE CHILDREN AND WHY THERE ARE CAGES

    REASONING
    The policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S. border was part of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” approach to immigration enforcement, which began in 2018.

    Here are the main reasons cited for this policy:

    Deterrence: The policy was initially framed as a deterrent to illegal immigration. The idea was that if the consequence of illegal entry included family separation, fewer families would attempt to cross the border illegally.

    Prosecution of Parents: Under the zero-tolerance policy, all adults crossing the border illegally were to be criminally prosecuted. Since children cannot be held in criminal facilities, they were separated from their parents for this reason.

    Verification of Relationships: There was indeed an aspect where officials needed to verify the familial relationship between adults and children due to concerns over human trafficking, smuggling, and the use of children by unrelated adults to gain entry or better treatment in the immigration process. This verification process sometimes led to separations when the relationship couldn’t be immediately confirmed.

    Logistical and Legal Challenges: The separation also occurred because of logistical issues, such as insufficient family detention facilities, and due to legal interpretations of how to handle minors under laws like the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which mandates special handling for unaccompanied minors.

    However, the implementation of this policy led to widespread criticism for causing significant trauma to children, for lacking adequate procedures to track and reunite families, and for not having a comprehensive plan for reunification post-separation. The policy was reversed in June 2018 via an executive order, but the reunification process has been complex and ongoing, with some children still not reunited with their parents years later due to various reasons including parents being deported without their children.

    The policy of family separation as a deterrent for illegal immigration was officially ended by an executive order in June 2018. However, here are some key points regarding its current status:

    Legal Prohibition: A federal judge has prohibited the separation of migrant families at the U.S. border for eight years as part of a settlement, aimed to prevent the reimplementation of family separations for deterrence purposes. This prohibition was set to last until December 2031.

    Limited Circumstances: Separations can still occur, but under very limited circumstances. These include situations where there’s suspicion of child abuse, if the parent is convicted of serious crimes, or if there are doubts about the familial relationship between the adult and child.

    Ongoing Separations: Despite the formal end of the policy, there have been reports and instances where family separations have continued to occur, sometimes due to misinterpretations of the policy, new policies like Title 42 which led to children being sent back alone if their families were expelled, or when children are deemed unaccompanied due to various reasons like the lack of immediate proof of kinship.

    Reunification Efforts: The Biden administration has been working on reuniting families who were separated under the Trump policy, with some success, but there are still children who remain separated from their parents, many of whom were deported without their children.

    Public and Legal Scrutiny: The practice and its aftereffects continue to be a point of contention, legal battles, and public discourse, focusing on human rights, immigration policy, and the welfare of migrant children.

    While the policy as it was under the Trump administration has been legally curtailed, the broader issues of family unity, verification of relationships at the border, and how children are handled in immigration processes remain complex and subject to ongoing policy adjustments and legal oversight.

    Reply addressees: @annaclarity1 @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-13 00:48:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856499368003809280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856497679523844252

  • The wasps are a minority. The majority of the northeast is replacement by irish

    The wasps are a minority. The majority of the northeast is replacement by irish and italians (look it up), blacks and hispanics.

    TLDR; Puritans creating protestant academic institutions. Subsequent Academic Institutions creating the progressive mission. Rapid immigration of irish and italians and displacement of anglos who moved to the cheaper land in the ohio river valleys. Institutional capture by the postwar marxists. Radical war era migration of labor and incremental postwar blue collar dominance as it turns into a rust belt region. Because of the progressive/marxist capture of the universities, the part of the country that most adopted the soviet model. Amplified by immigration.

    Question
    New england is no longer an anglo bastion, but has been dominated by irish and italian immigration, and rapid expansion of blacks and now hispanics. Is this correct? What are the ethnic percentages?

    Answer
    Yes, the statement largely aligns with historical trends and demographic shifts in New England:

    Historical Context:
    New England was initially settled predominantly by English colonists, leading to a significant Anglo-Saxon influence. However, over time, particularly from the mid-19th to early 20th centuries, large waves of Irish and Italian immigrants arrived, significantly altering the ethnic composition of the region.

    Current Ethnic Composition:
    Irish and Italian: Historically, states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island have seen substantial Irish and Italian immigration. For instance, in Massachusetts, the Irish influence has been particularly strong, while Rhode Island is noted for its Italian-American community.

    Hispanic and Black Populations: Recent data indicates a growing Hispanic presence across New England. According to posts on X, Rhode Island is approximately 16% Hispanic and 5% Black, Massachusetts is around 12% Hispanic and 8% Black, and Connecticut has about 17% Hispanic and 11% Black.

    Detailed Percentages:
    While exact current percentages might fluctuate, here’s a rough overview based on recent information:
    Rhode Island: 16% Hispanic, 5% Black.
    Massachusetts: 12% Hispanic, 8% Black.
    Connecticut: 17% Hispanic, 11% Black.
    For states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, while they retain a more Anglo or French-Canadian demographic, there’s still noticeable diversity, especially in urban areas or due to political and economic influences from neighboring states.

    Conclusion:
    The assertion that New England has moved away from being an “Anglo bastion” due to significant Irish, Italian, Hispanic, and Black populations holds true.

    Question:
    So what accounts for the deep progressivism (democratic vote) of new england versus the rest of the country?

    Answer
    New England’s deep progressivism and its tendency to vote Democratic can be attributed to several historical, demographic, and cultural factors:

    Historical Roots of Progressivism:
    New England was a significant center for the Progressive Era reforms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Leaders like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Robert La Follette, who influenced progressive politics, either came from or were associated with the region. This historical inclination towards reform has left a lasting political legacy.

    Educational Influence:
    The region hosts numerous prestigious universities and colleges (e.g., Harvard, Yale, MIT), contributing to a culture that values education and intellectualism. This often correlates with progressive values, as higher education is associated with more liberal political orientations.

    Urbanization and Immigration:
    Cities like Boston have long been hubs for immigrants, which historically included the Irish and Italian, followed by Hispanic and other groups in more recent times. Urban areas tend to lean Democratic, and the cultural diversity brought by immigration has often aligned with progressive policies advocating for social justice, workers’ rights, and inclusivity.

    Economic Factors:
    While not uniformly wealthy, New England does have significant wealth in cities like Boston and suburbs like those in Connecticut. Affluent, educated voters often support progressive causes, especially in areas with a strong tradition of social welfare and community involvement.

    Cultural and Social Values:
    New England has been at the forefront of several social movements, notably in areas like women’s suffrage, civil rights, and more recently, environmentalism and LGBTQ+ rights. This reflects a cultural disposition towards social change and reform, which aligns with progressive ideologies.

    Political Infrastructure:
    The Democratic Party has had strong organizational presence and historical success in New England, partly due to the legacy of FDR’s New Deal, which had significant support in the region. This infrastructure helps in mobilizing voters and maintaining political influence.

    Demographic Changes:
    Over time, demographic shifts have included younger populations moving to urban centers for education and jobs, often bringing with them more progressive views. Additionally, the region has seen an influx of retirees, many of whom are politically engaged and lean towards progressive policies due to their life experiences.

    Environmentalism:
    New England’s landscape, with its natural beauty and historical conservation efforts, fosters an environmental consciousness that aligns with progressive environmental policies.

    Media Influence:
    The media environment in New England, particularly around major cities, tends to be more liberal, influencing public opinion and reinforcing progressive viewpoints.

    This combination of factors creates an environment where progressive politics thrive, leading New England to be consistently more Democratic in its voting patterns compared to many other regions of the United States. However, it’s worth noting that within New England, there are variations, with states like New Hampshire showing more of a swing state characteristic, sometimes leaning Republican due to its libertarian streak and less urbanized areas.

    Reply addressees: @QuetzalPhoenix


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-12 01:52:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856153048747520001

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855981713211482506

  • WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO: (Costs) Oh. So at eight o’clock in the morning, before I’ve

    WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO: (Costs)

    Oh. So at eight o’clock in the morning, before I’ve finished my first cup of coffee, you want me to answer a really hard question? lol 😉

    Here:

    Effectively, all governments maximize the use of existing technology to monitor and regulate the behavior of all citizens the the point of diminishing returns and then into burdensome costs that reverse the utility of centralizing costs (government) for the purpose of suppressing the hierarchy and network of rents (frictions) that occur in its absence.

    This is a universal law of government behavior. Governments suppress the hierarchy of rents (unearned takings on the work of others) in exchange for producing monetary and trade velocity, reducing transaction and risk costs (and the many other costs).

    It’s this reduction in costs that makes economies capable of producing trust in a complex division of labor over longer and more complex production cycles.

    It’s hard for we humans to think in the ‘via negativa’ like this – but we can understand that we can think in gaining knowledge (positiva) or removing ignorance (negativa). The same is true in economies. We can think in terms of facilitating trust and cooperation or removing costs that impeded trust and cooperation.

    Just for yucks, here is a hierarchical list of costs that people, polities, and governments can seek to reduce in order to create prosperity:

    1. Transaction Costs (Immediate, Perceptible)
    Costs of negotiating, executing, and enforcing agreements. These include direct expenses like fees and the time spent on bargaining.
    2. Opportunity Costs (Immediate, Perceptible)
    The value of the next best alternative foregone when making a decision. These are often felt as a direct trade-off in resource allocation.
    3. Information Costs
    Costs of obtaining, processing, and verifying necessary information for decision-making, including research and communication overhead.
    4. Coordination Costs
    Costs of aligning efforts, goals, and activities among individuals or organizations to ensure smooth execution.
    5. Compliance and Regulatory Costs
    Costs associated with meeting legal, regulatory, or internal policy requirements, such as audits, documentation, or legal counsel.
    6. Switching Costs
    Costs incurred when changing suppliers, technologies, or operational dependencies. These can be tangible (training, setup) or intangible (loss of integration benefits).
    7. Agency Costs
    Costs arising from conflicts of interest between principals and agents, including monitoring, incentivizing, or resolving misaligned objectives.
    8. Adaptation Costs
    Costs of adjusting operations, strategies, or resources in response to external changes such as market shifts, regulations, or technological advancements.
    9. Sunk Costs
    Costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Though economically irrelevant for future decisions, they often psychologically influence actors.
    10. Redundancy and Buffer Costs
    Costs of maintaining excess capacity or resources as insurance against uncertainty or risk.
    11. Complexity Costs
    Costs that arise from managing increasingly intricate systems or processes, leading to inefficiencies and reduced agility.
    12. Intertemporal Costs
    Costs resulting from decisions that affect future states, such as delayed investment returns or the erosion of future options due to present commitments.
    13. Externality Costs
    Costs or benefits imposed on third parties due to an economic activity, often unnoticed or unaccounted for by the primary actors.
    14. Cultural and Social Capital Costs (Remote, Imperceptible)
    Costs associated with building, maintaining, or repairing trust, reputation, and relationships, which are crucial but often difficult to quantify or perceive immediately.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @PolybiusOfNorth


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-07 17:16:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854573617511907328

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854559349445722286

  • (NLI Rumination) It’s very odd, but a good thing. … To explain how I grasp the

    (NLI Rumination)
    It’s very odd, but a good thing. … To explain how I grasp the world, I’ve had to develop a whole system of thought, and train a group of people to use and contribute to it, just to have people capable of collaboration – and it’s interesting how wonderful life is when that occurs. And how many insights you obtain into yourself, otehrs, and humanity in general.

    I’ve done it in business. I’ve done some of it in tech. But there is always a large gap. It’s fascinating to work with people where that gap keeps narrowing.

    Had a conversation with a team member last night who ‘put the work in’ and has turned out to be exceptionally precise. And it only serves to confirm that we can teach this to others, and the outcome for every single person is cognitively profound.

    But the individual has to want to make that investment. So we merely need to produce the courseware and get enough people trained so that the evidence of their words and actions produces market demand to learn.

    I am reluctant to take this tactic but the truth is the mindfulness alone is worth the investment. I am not quite sure but it is possible we have produced another step in the spectrum of Buddhism -> Confucianism -> Stoicism -> “Natural Law”. with the difference being one of gradual increases in agency and understanding to the point where ‘people just make sense’.

    Someone told me yesterday that it had made him extremely conscious of sex, class and ethnic frames when in conversation, and that this increased understanding and also increased one’s practical understanding of how far you can move someone’s mind on any subject.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-06 19:14:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854240916837740545

  • The felony conviction will be thrown out as a construction – it should never had

    The felony conviction will be thrown out as a construction – it should never had been treated as having merit. It had no merit. No one has ever been charged more than one hundred dollars for the same paperwork nonsense.
    Likewise the banks knew what they were getting into, every real estate asset is treated similarly, the loan was willingly given, paid on time or early, and they bank would do the loan or future loans again.
    The documents case was thrown out. There is some stomach to try to pursue it, but it’s a dead end. There has to be some intent. There has to be some harm. There wasn’t any.
    The fact that he banged a porn star is nothing compared to what men with wealth are capable of and practice with regularity. It’s wealth’s equivalent of common folk ‘doing a line’ or ‘ignoring a few grand’ on their tax return, or breaking some other minor law. (I could tell you stories from around the world).
    I’ve put truly bad people away for real fraud, financial crimes, and racketeering. Trump is squeaky clean compared to even average citizens. The fact that they had to abuse the law in each case is evidence of how clean he is. If there was anything meaningful to find they would have found it. But they didn’t. So they made it up.

    Reply addressees: @eyeslasho


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-06 17:22:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854212899419648000

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854174357616025628