This is exactly what Grand Juries are for and why the bar for indictment is so low.

It’s a safeguard to prevent frivolous felony persecution by the State upon individuals.

It is to the Jurors to take one look at the evidence the prosecution presents and to say, nope, this is a BS case.

That’s why it’s so easy to get indictments. Generally, prosecutors only show up with actual evidence of potential wrong doing.

If they show up with nothing, in typical Trump legal team fashion, they will get no indictment.

They seem to think because THEY suck at law, everyone else does too. All competent lawyers left that administration. Believe it or not, plenty of lawyers actually have respect for the institutions they spent their lives training in and working in.

Yeah, I just lean into it. Try and count lol! Or maybe it could be turned into a drinking game!

Love the vibe, but not making enough bad decisions to be truly Janeway.

Yeah, he’s another good example. Funny thing is he and Lisa are related. That’s a hell of a legacy cooking in that family tree.

I’m not necessarily saying they need to be ABLE to do all the jobs, but I think it’s probably a good recipe for success for the CEO to understand the importance of each role in a company. And that said, an Engineer type CEO is probably a boon to companies who are in the business of engineering solutions.

Sure sure, though I think at that point the semantics of the word “direct” is probably something we would discuss and find common ground at. By direct I simply mean whatever the shortest VIABLE route is, which may end up being quite circuitous.

I think a good CEO should strive to understand as much of a business he runs as possible. But the larger the company the more I find that it’s common that the CEO actually is NOT skilled in the fields most integral to the company’s success.

AMD has Lisa Su, but that seems like an exception more than a rule.

Ah… So if I’m reading you right, you’re saying:

Yes, no system currently accounts for what we NEED it to do. So the most DIRECT solution would be to create a new movement, a new SYSTEM of people, control, and influence that transcends existing abstractions like nationalities, race, culture, and have this ontologically encompassing system implement that change from its larger frame of reference.

I like that. I hadn’t considered that approach and it’s probably right on the money. I think the first step is recognition of the issue and the need for such a movement. As such… Have you thought about names?

Something you would call such an endeavor, or movement, or coalition. Something that would be instantly recognizable as to what the goal or at least spirit or attitude behind it would be? Probably seems like a silly thing to fixate on this early, but sometimes the right name is a powerful tool.

Well you got to work ontologically. A nation is a system with existing controls. And national control is already dicey at best. Implementing a direct solution at the international level would require a system that to my knowledge doesn’t even exists. We treat the UN like an optional club not a world government.

Sure, you right, I didn’t mean to imply you need to be a member of a particular community to think there’s a logical point being made. Just meant to point out that there are interesting points being made scattered in every viewpoint.

I guess my goal was to kind of show that all these groups at war with one another are kind of talking past each other without really communicating.

And then I see them railing into the void about it as if that’s an attempt at communication, meanwhile those people don’t realize there are just as many people answering, but everyone is in echo chambers so the algorithm isn’t going to spoon feed it to them.

They’d actively have to be looking for the answer in places that make them uncomfortable.

He’s a madman with a box! Gotta love him.

I think Miaa is not talking about the literal rights they fought for, but largely a commentary on women collectively valuing financial independence from being a couple over more traditional couple based partnership.

I’ve been watching the argument unfold on the traditionalist side but they aren’t great at articulating what they are trying to say. So it always looks like rage inducing over simplification.

On the female TikTok side of the Internet, there’s a lot of sentiment from women expressing disdain for the idea of going 50-50 with a man, and a lot of preference for men that out earn them. That’s inconsistent from a financial independence mindset.

Then you have the women like Miaa who were like, housewife is easier than ever with the technological innovations you already mentioned. ‘Why not just be a homemaker if guys appreciate that and are willing to take care of you?’

Then the red pill guys are another party in the conversation, and they are saying things like, what women say they want and their actions don’t seem to be aligning and a lot of them are either done dating or at minimum have no intention of long term commitment. "Women say equality but not when the check comes. They want men to be open with their emotions but it gives them ‘the ick’. Men shouldn’t approach women in public because it’s creepy, but now the internet is flooded with women asking where men went and why they are being so effeminate. " That’s the kind of thinking I’m seeing in those circles.

It’s a big mess! Do I have a fix? Nope, just commenting on the forest fire from my vantage point. I’m just thankful I’m not in the dating market.

Hopefully it’s just whining from the vocal minorites that make all this content, and the majority of people are still balanced people that aren’t aspiring content creators and are basically happily living their lives so we don’t hear from them. Please, confirmation bias, be something good for a change. Be the fog obscuring the true good. 🤞

“why would you do that?!”

“… I had a duty of care.”

Well could we somehow do it via serial number on the notes maybe? Like let’s say we use the event to denote a switch to color money instead of green only. And then we say in 10 years, all green money is expired and worthless, so every note has to come back into the Treasury to get renewed, and at that time be potentially subjected to repatriation taxes.

Think something like that could work?

… Did Trump just preside over the first F15 loss in history?

Oh yeah, I just mean academically. We would need to be on a much different anti oligarchy footing to actually implement. But in the meantime, I like to noodle out systems and mechanisms.

Let’s say we eventually get to a renewed trust buster energy like we used the last time we broke up the corporate giants long ago.

Is there anything we could realistically do even with full control of the government, or is that money basically propping up the entire interconnected world economy?

Wonder if there’s a way to force all outstanding Treasury notes outside of the country to need to return back to treasury for renewal or otherwise be written off at invalid debt.

I’ll admit that I still use v4, but only because I didn’t have a compelling reason to switch. That said, this feels like the kinda reaction I would have had were I in his shoes. 😂

Well I’ve got plenty to say on it. It largely made school districts nationwide more concerned about standardized testing scores than actually teaching. Result: Teaching in Brooklyn in a bad area, administration pressured me into finding ways to inflate grades of failing students who couldn’t even copy words off the board onto paper and hand it in. But all those people probably left with high school diplomas by the end of their time in high schools.

No Child Left Behind probably destroyed us.