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:
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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?
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?
Real estate laundering being common doesn’t prove Trump laundering.
General mechanism ≠ proof of a specific person’s intent, knowledge, or participation.
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.
Why assume Trump is a “controlled partner” instead of “useful chaos”?
Many actions can incidentally benefit Russia without being coordinated. Alignment ≠ control.
The “viral photo with Mogilevich” type claims need provenance.
Who took it, when, where, and what archive verifies it? Otherwise it’s misinformation risk.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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?
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?
Real estate laundering being common doesn’t prove Trump laundering. General mechanism ≠ proof of a specific person’s intent, knowledge, or participation.
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.
Why assume Trump is a “controlled partner” instead of “useful chaos”? Many actions can incidentally benefit Russia without being coordinated. Alignment ≠ control.
The “viral photo with Mogilevich” type claims need provenance. Who took it, when, where, and what archive verifies it? Otherwise it’s misinformation risk.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Hole: The argument slides from:
This is a classic analytical mistake.
Countries often benefit from:
Accidental alignment
Internal dysfunction
Populism elsewhere
Benefit ≠ orchestration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hole: The argument implies:
Reality:
Russia had invasion plans long before Paris Accords
Military buildup preceded climate policy milestones
Oil demand remained high during Trump years
Correlation ≠ causation.
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.
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.
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.