What if the human is not responsible? All that effort to create better more sustainable world would be pointless! You are all lemmings! /S

Or where the amount of billionaire hit a mark. It’s never about immigrants

Sadly I spoke with people and they still think they are offered a solution with afd

So by stabbing themselves they prevent another country to decide on their own?

So a roundabout for Americans?

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.

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 😂

That’s 50 trillion people! Imagine this!

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?

Superheroes does not exist

We can agree that tech gave more power to people they used it to be more authorial. That said when they don’t need worker anymore are we going to be allowed to exist?

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

Bio weapons and chemical weapons exist.

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

I call bullshit. Didn’t read the paper but:

How you are going to know about the sugar intake? Trust me bro.

Causality!=causation

“More research is needed to better understand the potential relationship between sugar intake and the development of dementia." 👍

Be hard on the topic but soft to the person!