https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/natural-sciences/animals/mammals/why-zebras-were-never-domesticated-like-horses/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_wick

I hate Trump, and think nothing but the worst of him and wish this were all facts to have him locked up and away from society, but there’s a ton of holes here:

1. What’s the primary evidence that Trump was involved in the Bank of New York/Benex laundering? Not “same era” or “same city”—show transactions, subpoenas, testimony, charges, or documented links between Trump entities and Benex/YBM.

2. Is “$10 billion” a proven number or an early estimate? If it’s an estimate from early reporting, building a whole causal story on it is shaky.

3. Are you distinguishing “Russian organized crime” from “the Kremlin”? They can overlap sometimes, but they’re not automatically the same actor. Where’s the documented chain of command?

4. “Trump properties were frequent targets” — what’s the denominator? How many Russian/shell-company buys happened in Trump buildings vs. comparable luxury buildings? Without comparative rates, “magnet” is just vibes.

5. Which claims are court-established vs. journalist-reported vs. internet-lore? If key details rely on books, blogs, or Wikipedia chains, what are the underlying primary documents?

6. Specific examples (Bogatin, Ivankov, etc.): what exactly is proven? “A criminal bought condos” is not the same as “Trump knowingly participated.” Which part is evidenced, and by what?

7. Real estate laundering being common doesn’t prove Trump laundering. General mechanism ≠ proof of a specific person’s intent, knowledge, or participation.

8. Where’s the evidence of Trump’s intent/knowledge? Did he direct acceptance of illicit funds? Did he knowingly structure deals? Did investigators establish willful blindness? Point to something concrete.

9. Why assume Trump is a “controlled partner” instead of “useful chaos”? Many actions can incidentally benefit Russia without being coordinated. Alignment ≠ control.

10. The “viral photo with Mogilevich” type claims need provenance. Who took it, when, where, and what archive verifies it? Otherwise it’s misinformation risk.

11. Moldova playbook similarity doesn’t prove identical organizers in the U.S. “Looks familiar” is not attribution. What’s the specific evidence tying the same networks/handlers to both contexts?

12. Bomb threats “from Russian email domains” don’t equal a coordinated takeover plot. Even if true, that shows nuisance/harassment operations—not proof a U.S. candidate is a Russian asset.

13. The narrative collapses categories: business ties, criminal finance, state intelligence, and political outcomes are repeatedly blended as one continuous storyline without proven links between each step.

14. Extraordinary claim standard: If the claim is “decades-long covert partnership and capture,” the evidence has to be extraordinary—documents, money trails, sworn testimony—not a pile of suggestive anecdotes.

Daily user, works just as well as discord, etc, no middle man (self hosted for many use cases).

1. Overstating “Russia Only Sells Oil”

Hole: Russia is highly dependent on oil and gas, but it does not only sell oil.

Why it matters:

Russia exports:

Natural gas (distinct markets, long-term contracts)

Nuclear technology (Rosatom)

Wheat (top global exporter)

Arms (historically #2 globally)

Metals (nickel, palladium, aluminum)

Climate transition threatens Russia, but not instant or total collapse.

Effect on argument: Weakens the claim that green energy = automatic “total destruction of Russia.”

---

2. Climate Transition Timeline Is Unrealistic

Hole: The argument assumes a rapid, unified global transition away from fossil fuels.

Reality:

Energy transitions take decades

Oil demand remains strong in:

India

Southeast Asia

Africa

Even Europe still buys fossil fuels indirectly

Why this matters: Russia has time to:

Redirect exports

Delay transitions

Sabotage international coordination (which it does)

The threat is real—but not imminent enough to explain panic-level behavior.

---

3. Over-Centralizing Putin’s Motives

Hole: The argument reduces Putin’s motivations to two drivers only: NATO + oil.

Missing factors:

Regime survival

Domestic legitimacy

Elite power balance

Demographics collapse

Fear of democratic contagion

Personal risk of removal

Why it matters: Russia invades neighbors even when NATO isn’t involved (Georgia, Chechnya, Syria).

This suggests authoritarian control, not only NATO pressure, drives aggression.

---

4. Trump as a Singular, Coherent Russian Asset

Hole: The argument treats Trump as:

Strategically consistent

Disciplined

Capable of long-term coordination

Problem: Trump is impulsive, chaotic, and often acts against Russian interests:

Sanctioned Nord Stream 2

Sent lethal aid to Ukraine

Killed Russian mercenaries in Syria (Wagner)

More plausible: Trump is useful chaos, not a controlled partner.

---

5. Confusing Alignment of Interests with Direct Control

Hole: The argument slides from:

“Trump’s actions benefited Russia” to: “Trump is partnered with Russia”

This is a classic analytical mistake.

Countries often benefit from:

Accidental alignment

Internal dysfunction

Populism elsewhere

Benefit ≠ orchestration.

---

6. Insufficient Evidence for “Operational Infiltration”

Hole: Claims about:

Special forces flights

Journalists as covers

Mass infiltration

Issue:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Russia does conduct intelligence ops—but scaling this to U.S. takeover lacks proof

Why it matters: Speculation undermines otherwise serious arguments.

---

7. Ignoring Structural U.S. Resilience

Hole: The argument underestimates:

Federalism

Military command separation

Intelligence compartmentalization

Independent courts

State-level election control

Reality: The U.S. is one of the hardest countries to “take over” covertly.

Russia historically succeeds where:

Institutions are weak

Media is centralized

Economies are dependent

The U.S. does not fit that profile.

---

8. NATO Expansion as Sole Cause of Ukraine War

Hole: This mirrors Russian propaganda framing.

Missing context:

Ukraine sought NATO after Russian aggression

NATO repeatedly rejected Ukraine membership

Russia violated Ukraine’s sovereignty before NATO expansion became credible

This weakens credibility, even if NATO tension is real.

---

9. Moral Overreach Weakens Strategic Analysis

Hole: Heavy use of:

Sexual blackmail narratives

Personal degeneracy claims

Gangster caricatures

Problem: These may be emotionally compelling but:

Are weakly evidenced

Distract from structural explanations

Make the argument sound conspiratorial

Serious geopolitics works without villain porn.

---

10. Post Hoc Fallacy on Climate Policy Timing

Hole: The argument implies:

Climate urgency → Russian panic → Trump → Ukraine

Reality:

Russia had invasion plans long before Paris Accords

Military buildup preceded climate policy milestones

Oil demand remained high during Trump years

Correlation ≠ causation.

---

11. Overestimating Democratic Unity

Hole: The argument assumes:

Democrats were leading a unified global front

Climate action was unstoppable

Reality:

U.S. climate policy has always been fragile

European dependence on Russian energy continued

China’s “excitement” was strategic, not altruistic

Russia likely saw fragmentation, not inevitability.

---

12. Ignoring Russia’s Own Strategic Failures

Hole: If Russia were executing a master plan, why:

Fail in Kyiv?

Underestimate Ukrainian resistance?

Expose military corruption?

Trigger NATO expansion (Finland, Sweden)?

These outcomes suggest miscalculation, not chess mastery.

---

13. Long Telegram Misapplied

Hole: Kennan’s Long Telegram emphasizes:

Containment

Patience

Structural weakness

The post instead frames Russia as:

Omnipotent

Omnipresent

Hyper-competent

That contradicts Kennan’s core thesis.

---

Bottom Line

Strongest part of the argument:

Russia fears NATO

Russia fears energy transition

Russia exploits democratic division

Weakest parts:

Overconfidence in Russian competence

Over-attribution of coordination

Speculative leaps

Treating Trump as an intentional agent rather than chaotic alignment

Idk, the vaccination rates are questionable, though wtf NJ? https://www.axios.com/2025/12/31/measles-flu-vaccine-mmr-rates-2026

Sell it, or buy and return items to make cash, invest it.

Traffic lights are the same colors as a subset of bell peppers?

I can do that and flare my nostrils, my brother always made fun of me for it.

https://youtu.be/xon9A5_4tQw

This does a fantastic job describing the situation

Better there than wasting money at a motel, rushing and making mistakes else where. Opportunity to provide contraceptives via ready access in bathroom. Set boundaries, I don’t want you hear it etc, but turn a bound eye if not too atrocious. No kids but my parents did that for me, I chose not too have kids, but were it not for those reasons I’d likely have one about the same age now.

This thought appears on Reddit r/showerthoughts in 2024, potentially prior, though I guess who’s to say it’s not original

So the concept is that the models are kicking out these common themes and naming patterns, so there must be a source that correlates them together? And if it’s not public domain then there’s some copyright material at the foundation of many different commercial models?

My wife would notice in a few hours, and be panicked in less than 12. Work would notice in <12-16 hours weekdays, <60 hours weekend.

My father, back in the 90s, got into a fist fight with 2 guys over this, they had a boom box, he got stitches because one of their girlfriends came up from behind and hit him in the head with the radio. He was hot tempered. Glad you weren’t drawn into a confrontation and used your head.

Second this, it was the largest blocker, but also time, with other classes and the cadence of the school year, that didn’t align well with the real world timeframes.

Know - no

Hold theories - still no (definitely many lost to history)

Of the modern documented set, it seems like there are decent theories, but far from definitive. I’d go as far as to say there’s a 50/50 chance that the field is right about at least 1 instance, see Pasteur.

Agreed it’s toward the direction, but too far to say it’s substantial.

I was unaware that these creatures had an entire pseudo science, but I guess it makes sense. But the definition of knowledge is antithetical to this entire study, since at it’s core it studies the undetermined. No question is stupid, but this is blatantly ignorant. Still I’m glad you asked it because I learned something new

WTF RI?

They’re saying don’t cast blame, instead move from a position of empathy to open their eyes. Certainly they made a bad decision, but they’re uneducated, poor and likely brainwashed, which is only reinforced by negative action. Their plight is an opportunity to commiserate and bring clarity to the situation.