Just a dude living in CT

Joined April 2020
🚨 OCTOBER 7TH FOOTAGE- UNCUT. WARNING ⚠️ RAW FOOTAGE ⚠️ NEVER FORGET THE UK ISLAMIST ANTISEMITICS LABOUR GAVE THEM A STATE. AND YOUR MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF YOUR TAXPAYER 😡🥲💔🇮🇱🙏
299
1,759
125
9,246
554,261
WTF???!!! This is insane! NBC made Lindsay Clancy juror Kellie Farina re-answer a question - but they left her initial response in the video! This is at the 32:08 mark in the interview, watch: Interviewer: "Do you think that she should be re-tried?" Farina: "I would like to see her be re-tried, absolutely." Then the interviewer looks off screen and gestures to someone. Was that a signal to edit that part out because they didn't like her answer? Then she stumbles through asking the EXACT same question! Interviewer: "You think, you think, you would like she should be re- re-tried?" Then they cut to another camera shot for Farina to re-answer the question. Farina: "I would like him NOT to re-try her." What is this? They didn't even edit out Farina's initial answer which was that she WOULD like Lindsay to be re-tried! In the span of 10 seconds, you can watch Farina basically say "yes" and "no" to literally the same question. How can we believe anything these jurors say? If a juror answers a question in a way the media doesn't like they make them re-do the question with a different answer? How many other times has this happened? Fake. News. What a disgrace... Link to the interview: youtube.com/watch?v=RdxTKM7w…
152
1,246
120
6,836
1,188,414
Buckley asks Sowell why most black leaders ignore his kind of analysis. Sowell’s answer is blunt: They need political solutions to stay relevant as leaders — and victimization is the easiest explanation for failure. Then he drops the killer line: “Name me three Japanese American leaders.” No one can. Yet Japanese Americans advanced anyway. Leadership isn’t what moves groups forward. Skills and culture do.
34
1,005
37
3,762
109,224
Brooke Jackman’s final call from the 104th floor of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Listen to her voice. Then remember that Hasan Piker once said, “America deserved 9/11.” And remember every politician who later campaigned with him; Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed, and the rest.
28
331
28
1,156
35,363
No one thinks this is genocide-- Because it is Ukraine attacking Russian civilian infrastructure that enables Putin's war machine in a war that Russia started. Gaza declared war on Israel. Israel has the right to be at war with Gaza until Gaza chooses to disarm and surrender.
1
29
66
883
The false claim that Israel committed "genocide" in Gaza can be easily refuted with facts!
69
225
17
1,050
39,509
Replying to @BernieSanders
Bernie. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. Let me get this straight, because I want to make sure I am reading your economics homework correctly, and I did not eat a bowl of alphabet soup this morning so bear with me. You just listed UnitedHealth's $5.48 billion quarterly profit as proof of corporate greed. Cute. Except that profit happened WHILE the Affordable Care Act — the law that guarantees these insurers a captive, subsidized, taxpayer-fed customer base — has been the law of the land for fifteen years. You are not exposing corporate greed, Senator. You are reading me the receipt for your own bill. The ACA did not shrink the insurance industry. It turned it into a government-guaranteed cash cow, and now you are shocked, SHOCKED, that the cow got fat. Eats soup with a fork, this one. And here is the part that should really sting. Your own party just finished a 43-day shutdown demanding MORE money be poured into that exact system, because the temporary COVID subsidies YOUR PARTY wrote into the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — zero Republican votes on either bill, by the way — expired right on schedule, exactly as YOU designed them to. Not a single Republican voted to end those subsidies. You did. Then you shut down the government to admit, out loud, on the record, that a law literally named the AFFORDABLE Care Act cannot survive without emergency pandemic cash. That is not an insult from me. That is a confession from you. So now the solution is Medicare for All. Naturally. Because when a fifteen-year-old government program made the insurance companies richer, the answer is obviously MORE government program, just bigger. If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest man in the Senate. Independent estimates put full single-payer implementation at somewhere between forty and sixty percent of the ENTIRE federal budget. Forty to sixty percent, Senator. Larger than Social Security. Larger than defense. You want me to hand over half the country's checkbook to the same apparatus that just admitted its last healthcare experiment doesn't work without a subsidy IV drip. Let's talk about who's asking. You have served in the United States government for something like forty years between the House and Senate, and by my count the bills you personally got across the finish line as lead sponsor could be counted on one hand, mostly involving the naming of federal buildings. Somewhere out there is a tree tirelessly producing oxygen for you, Senator, and it owes itself an apology for the return on investment. This is also the same man who, as a young idealist, tried out communal living on a hippie commune and did not exactly stick around long enough to collect a pension from it. Now you want the reins to fifty percent of the national budget. I keep hearing "tax the rich" out of a man worth several million dollars who charters private jets on his "Fighting Oligarchy" tour because, in his own words, he isn't waiting in line at United with the rest of us peasants. Bless your heart. That is rich even by Congressional standards. Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel, but sure, hand him the checkbook. And before you tell me capitalism failed and it's finally socialism's turn — how's that working out for your ideological younger brother in New York? Zohran Mamdani just announced a THIRTY MILLION DOLLAR government grocery store in a city his own comptroller says is worse than broke. Kansas City tried this. Erie, Kansas tried this. That is not a hunch, Senator, that is a lab result, and I am a science teacher, so let me walk you through the peer review. An experiment only counts as science if it has been REPLICATED. Not run once. Run again. And again. Under different conditions, different continents, different decades, different "well THIS time we'll do it right" true believers standing at the podium. So let's replicate it together, shall we, because apparently nobody handed you the lab notes. Trial one: the USSR, 1920s and 1930s. Stalin seized the farms, collectivized the kulaks, and centrally planned the harvest. Result: the Holodomor, a man-made famine in Ukraine that starved somewhere between five and ten million people to death while grain was actively being EXPORTED past their starving bodies. That is not a rounding error. That is a control group that died. Trial two: Cuba, 1959 onward. Castro nationalized every business, every farm, every bank on the island. Sugar production, once the envy of the hemisphere, collapsed. The economy shrank thirty-five percent in a single decade when the Soviet training wheels came off. Extreme poverty today sits near eighty-eight percent. Same experiment. Same result. Trial three: Venezuela, sitting on some of the largest oil reserves on the PLANET, nationalized its oil industry and ran the socialist playbook to the letter. Production collapsed from three and a half million barrels a day to under one million. Hyperinflation peaked past sixty-three THOUSAND percent. Nine million people fled. You cannot bribe your way out of the results with oil money. We tried. It's in the data. Trial four, and this one should make every teacher in America wince: China's Great Leap Forward, 1958 to 1962. Mao abolished private farming, herded peasants into communes, melted down their pots and pans for backyard steel that was too low-grade to use for anything. Somewhere between fifteen and forty-five million people starved. Some regions saw cannibalism. That is not a typo. That is what happens when central planners replace the price system with a five-year plan and a slogan. Trial five: North Korea, present day, running the same command economy with the Juche twist. Famine in the 1990s killed hundreds of thousands to over a million. Markets are technically illegal and thrive anyway in the shadows, because human beings will trade even when their government threatens to shoot them for it. Trial six is my personal favorite because it is the cleanest natural experiment in the history of economics: East versus West Germany. Same people. Same language. Same culture. Same starting point in 1945. One half got markets, one half got the Stasi and collectivized industry. East German productivity settled at roughly thirty to seventy-five percent of the West's, and the population had to build a WALL to stop its own citizens from swimming, tunneling, and hot-air-ballooning their way out. Nobody builds a wall to keep people from fleeing prosperity, Senator. Trial seven: Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975 to 1979. They abolished money entirely. No markets. No private property. Total state control, straight out of the textbook you apparently keep on your nightstand. One point seven to three million people, roughly a quarter of the country, died of starvation, overwork, and execution in FOUR YEARS. And for the extra credit column: Ethiopia's Derg collectivization, Tanzania's Ujamaa villages, Yugoslavia's market-socialism ceiling, Vietnam before it finally abandoned the model, India's decades of License Raj stagnation, and Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc running factories that burned three times the steel per unit of output compared to the free market next door. Every single trial, same hypothesis, same result. I have seen middle schoolers design better controlled experiments during a volcano science fair. That is not one anecdote, Bernie. That is a stack of peer-reviewed, historically documented, independently verified trials spanning four continents and a full century, and the conclusion section reads the same every time: shortages, queues, corruption, and a body count north of a hundred million people once you tally every collectivized farm, every purged kulak, and every commune that ran out of rice. If an experiment fails this many times in this many labs, a real scientist stops blaming the equipment and starts questioning the hypothesis. You, apparently, would rather run trial number eight on 340 million Americans and call it "finally getting it right." Trying to reason with some folks really is like trying to baptize a cat. Quinn's First Law of Liberalism: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. You want cheaper healthcare, you get record insurer profits. You want affordable food, you get a thirty-million-dollar failed grocery store. You want to fight the oligarchy, you fly private. Every single time. Set your watch by it. I keep asking Democrats this question and I never get an answer: what have YOU actually done to help people, versus just handing out someone else's money? Because handouts without a ladder out is not compassion. It is a leash. And I think deep down you know that, Senator, or you wouldn't need the private jet to get away from the people you claim to be fighting for. You're about as useful as a screen door on a submarine when it comes to actually running anything, but boy can you point fingers. You are the human version of period cramps on this topic, Bernie, and I mean that with the utmost respect for a man who has spent forty years discovering new ways to spend money he didn't earn. Has a leak in the think tank if he genuinely believes THIS is the moment socialism finally works. Unless your name is Google, Senator, you need to stop acting like you know everything about running an economy you have personally never had to run. But what do I know. I am only a medically retired Army combat medic and a science teacher who actually reads the Congressional Budget Office numbers before I open my mouth about a trillion-dollar healthcare takeover. @JoJoFromJerz @atrupar @TheYoungTurks #MAGA #Veterans #Trump
910
4,895
870
13,845
1,127,236
CT Dude retweeted
All of Congressman’s @RoKhanna’s financial disclosures are finally OCR’d and searchable online He hand-filed papers instead of using the electronic system to obfuscate the data, but I indexed them all here: rokhanna.money
Replying to @kane @RoKhanna
He must really love golf, because besides >$2M in private golf memberships, @RoKhanna has ~$100k invested in golf stocks
97
1,107
94
4,922
744,275
In 1825, a rich Welsh industrialist bought an entire American town to prove that socialism could work. He had the money, the buildings, the theory, and hundreds of eager followers waiting to move in. Two years later, it was over. 🧵
783
6,384
699
20,836
2,746,294
This is because the anti-capitalist left is not actually against people being crazy rich. They're against certain types of people being crazy rich. Artists and athletes make sense to them because they've played music and sports and because their success can be explained by "luck" and "talent". Messi's wealth is not offensive to them because they understand Messi is much better at football than they are. But when it comes to business, the anti-capitalist leftist has no framework for understanding why Jeff Bezos might be super rich since 99% of them have never ever created a product, business or service that was of value to other people. They've never taken entrepreneurial risk. They've never employed people and felt the burden of responsibility that comes with that. They've never pick up a business and given it a play in the way they've picked up a ball or a guitar. They *literally* don't understand wealth creation. They think there is a fixed amount of money and the only thing a business does is split it unfairly. It's why they rage at Elon and other successful business leaders. Because they genuinely don't understand why they're wealthy. Also, and this is just as important, athletes and artists are disproportionately young, attractive, "diverse", left wing etc. Business leaders are "evil" middle aged white men whose success offends the average anti-capitalist leftist because they don't understand a) what it is they do and b) that Elon Musk has the same talent advantage on them as Messi does, it's just harder to measure.
It’s criminal the CEO makes 400X what the average worker makes but it’s perfectly fine that Taylor Swift makes 100000X more than the people who clean the arena after her concerts. A just society is one that rewards the exceptional qualities of the musician but not the executive.
1,143
5,138
366
31,194
3,824,539
Is Zohran Mamdani the NEW face of the Democratic Party? (aired 6/25) xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1nJOLLYRV…
6
2
20
6,672
Mike Greenberg believes SGA’s boring style of play could impact him in All Time Great conversations: “Sometimes watching him play is agonizing. It is not fun…. You have to understand that for the rest of us, watching this style of play is not like watching Steph, it’s not like watching Michael Jordan. It’s just not. We’re watching to be entertained.”
Michael Wilbon says kids around the world will be learning how to FLOP if SGA wins the title this year: “Winning covers all this stuff. The deodorant that covers all stink, is winning…. If SGA goes back to back, and enters next season as a two time champion and two time MVP, guess what? There will be kids on the playground learning how to flop”
231
233
83
2,350
455,925
This is what Memorial Day is about, This is also why We don’t tolerate People Burning our Flag!
1,732
15,831
707
63,371
1,381,762
AOC vient d'expliquer qu'on ne peut pas "gagner" un milliard de dollars. Que c'est mathématiquement impossible. Que tout milliardaire est forcément un voleur, un abuseur de lois du travail, un payeur sous-évalué. Ce niveau d'ignorance économique de la part d'une élue qui légifère sur l'économie devrait nous faire hurler. Reprenons depuis le début, parce qu'apparemment c'est nécessaire. Un milliardaire n'est pas quelqu'un qui a un milliard de dollars en cash sur son compte. Un milliardaire est quelqu'un dont le marché évalue les actifs (principalement des parts d'entreprise) à un milliard ou plus. Elon Musk n'a pas "pris" 800 milliards à quelqu'un. Il a créé Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Le marché évalue ces entreprises à plusieurs trillions cumulés. Il en détient une fraction. C'est ça, sa "fortune". La question fondamentale qu'AOC ne se pose jamais : d'où vient la valeur ? La valeur n'est pas un gâteau fixe qu'on se partage. La valeur est créée. Quand SpaceX divise par 10 le coût du lancement orbital, ce n'est pas du vol, c'est de la création pure. Avant Musk, lancer un kilo en orbite coûtait 50K$. Aujourd'hui 1.5K$. Cette création de valeur est mesurable, vérifiable, et bénéficie à toute l'humanité. L'internet par satellite couvre des zones que les États ont été incapables de connecter en 50 ans. Les voitures électriques ont forcé toute l'industrie auto à se réinventer. Maintenant, la question centrale qu'AOC évite soigneusement : qui devrait allouer les ressources dans une société ? Parce que l'argent, fondamentalement, c'est ça. Un signal d'allocation. Décider où va le capital, le travail, l'énergie, le temps humain. Trois options historiques : L'État (bureaucrates élus ou nommés) Les comités citoyens (démocratie directe) Les entrepreneurs qui ont prouvé leur capacité d'allocation par leurs résultats L'option 1 a été testée massivement au 20ème siècle. URSS, Chine maoïste, Venezuela, Cuba, Corée du Nord. Résultat : famines, pénuries, effondrement. Des dizaines de millions de morts. L'allocation étatique est un désastre empirique total. L'option 2 n'a jamais existé à grande échelle pour des raisons mathématiques. Le calcul économique nécessaire pour allouer les ressources d'une économie moderne dépasse les capacités cognitives d'une assemblée. Hayek l'avait démontré dès 1945 (The Use of Knowledge in Society). L'option 3, c'est le marché. Et le marché récompense ceux qui allouent bien. Ceux qui allouent mal font faillite, perdent leur capital, sortent du jeu. Les survivants sont par sélection darwinienne les meilleurs allocateurs disponibles. Elon Musk est riche parce qu'il a prouvé, sur 25 ans, qu'il alloue mieux le capital que 99.9999% de l'humanité. PayPal. Tesla. SpaceX. Starlink. Chaque fois, il a pris du capital et l'a transformé en infrastructure civilisationnelle. La vraie question n'est pas "pourquoi Musk a tant", c'est : "pourquoi n'a-t-il pas plus ?" Sérieusement. Si on veut maximiser la création de valeur pour l'humanité, on devrait vouloir que les meilleurs allocateurs aient accès à plus de capital, pas moins. Donner 100 milliards à AOC pour qu'elle les redistribue selon sa vision morale, c'est garantir leur destruction. Donner 100 milliards à Musk, c'est probablement obtenir des bases martiennes, de l'énergie quasi-gratuite, et une révolution robotique. Le préjugé d'AOC, c'est que la richesse est un péché moral. C'est une vision théologique, pas économique. Elle traite le capital comme un stock à confisquer, pas comme un flux à orienter vers les usages les plus productifs. Et c'est là que sa thèse devient grotesque : "vous payez les gens moins que ce qu'ils valent." Définition de "ce qu'ils valent" selon AOC : ce qu'AOC pense qu'ils devraient toucher. Définition selon le marché : ce qu'un autre employeur est prêt à leur offrir. Si Tesla payait ses ingénieurs en dessous de leur valeur, ces ingénieurs partiraient chez Google, Apple, Meta. Ils restent. Donc la rémunération est compétitive. Mécanisme de base que tout étudiant en L1 d'éco comprend. Le pattern fondamental : AOC, et toute la classe politique qui pense comme elle, n'a jamais alloué une seule ressource productive de sa vie. Jamais embauché en assumant le risque salarial. Jamais investi son capital dans un projet incertain. Jamais créé une entreprise qui survit. Et pourtant elle veut décider qui peut posséder quoi. C'est l'équivalent de quelqu'un qui n'a jamais joué aux échecs voulant arbitrer un tournoi de grands maîtres en réécrivant les règles à mi-partie. Ce qui est triste, c'est que cette vision a un coût massif. Chaque fois qu'on taxe les meilleurs allocateurs, on détourne du capital de ses usages productifs vers des usages politiques (subventions, clientélisme, projets vanity étatiques). La France en sait quelque chose. 50 ans de redistribution, ISF, exit tax, taxe à 75%. Résultat : zéro géant tech, fuite des cerveaux, dette à 113% du PIB, croissance atone. AOC veut nous vendre le même poison en plus grand format. La conclusion est inconfortable mais nécessaire : nous avons besoin de plus de milliardaires, pas moins. Plus d'allocateurs prouvés. Plus de capital concentré entre les mains de ceux qui ont démontré qu'ils savent le faire fructifier pour l'humanité. Et nous avons besoin de moins d'AOC. Moins de gens qui n'ont rien construit, qui n'ont rien risqué, qui n'ont rien créé, mais qui veulent décider à la place de ceux qui font. Le mythe ce n'est pas "le mythe d'avoir mérité son milliard". Le mythe c'est qu'une députée de 36 ans qui n'a jamais géré un budget supérieur à son staff parlementaire ait la moindre légitimité à théoriser sur l'allocation du capital mondial.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: You can't earn a billion dollars. Ilana Glazer: That's right. AOC: You just can't earn that. Glazer: That's exactly correct. AOC: You can get market power. You can break rules. You can do all sorts of things. You can abuse labor laws. Glazer: Yup. AOC: You can pay people less than what they're worth. Glazer: Yup. AOC: But you can't earn that, right? Glazer: That's right. AOC: And so you have to create a myth that -- since you didn't earn that, you have to create a myth of earning it.
204
757
136
3,394
420,639
Milton Friedman on 4 ways to spend money: 1) Your money on yourself (you’re careful about both cost and quality) 2) Your money on others (you care about cost, less about quality) 3) Someone else’s money on yourself (you care about quality, not cost) 4) Someone else’s money on others (you care about neither) The last one is how government spending works.
50
2,202
150
7,247
288,629
65 times Hasan Piker endorsed political violence and terrorism:
397
4,589
476
20,751
555,813
The issue with Olympic athletes like Hunter Hess and Amber Glenn using their time to spew politics has nothing to do with free speech. Absolutely nothing. They can say what they want. But they are at an event where the athletes are specifically representing their country. And no one complains more than Americans with more privilege than anyone else in the world. It's embarrassing. There are zero athletes competing, who love everything their government is doing. Yet the only people who bash their country are those who are from the one place in the world that millions would give anything to be a part of. A little love for America and being proud to represent what we stand for, regardless of whether or not you like the President, would go a long way. But far too many young Americans prefer to whine. And most of us are over it. We don't want to watch you if you're not even proud of who you are or where you're from. Especially when you've said you're only there for the people who agree with you. So you won't mind if we boycott - since you've admitted you don't represent the country, but that you're only competing for those who align with how you think. ~ @Outspoken_Sam
59
88
7
538
10,984
CT Dude retweeted
I am horrified. I cannot believe it. I analyzed public databases and media reporting on violent confrontations with ICE over the past year. Just 9 counties accounted for TWO-THIRDS of violent confrontations with ICE in America. This is twice all violent confrontations in the remaining 3,134 counties COMBINED. A violent confrontation in these 9 counties was 590 TIMES more likely than any of these other 3,134 counties. 590 times. I plotted these 9 counties, and I found that all 9 counties are sanctuary jurisdictions run by Democrat politicians that resist immigration law enforcement. These violent confrontations are RARE in states and cities where local officials cooperate with law enforcement.
3,182
16,605
1,561
42,283
1,597,497
"If America is a racist country then why do we let you people in here?" 🤔
323
2,752
148
15,677
197,637
CT Dude retweeted
1993. Senator Dianne Feinstein travels to the Southern border with a group of Democrats to bring attention to the problem of illegal immigration. "The day when America could be the welfare system for a Mexico is gone. We simply can't afford it...The people who should be here are those who come legally."
223
3,516
202
9,311
144,627