uncle bernard

The Afghan Zero Teams are a well established fact. They did illegal dirty work for the military. Also key for facilitating the heroin trade run by the warlords we paid to fight the Taliban. If you want to know more, here’s where I first learned about them years ago. https://theintercept.com/2020/12/18/afghanistan-cia-militia-01-strike-force/

Nope. He was a member of zero unit 3. This is now confirmed. Childhood friend is on record saying he suffered emotionally from the actions he took part in. This is the second incident in 6 months involving a repatriated Afghan operative. You can google Jamal Wali to see the other. Long video of him having an emotional breakdown before shooting an officer. Sad and unsurprising that the most conspiracy-brained guy on here immediately buries his head in the sand once a confirmed scandal appears but it contradicts his world view.

What are you blabbering about?

He’s a former CIA operative in Afghanistan, part of a “zero unit.” These units have been credibly accused of being death squads. They conducted off the book “missions” on behalf of the US Military. Organized by the CIA. Imperial Boomerang.

In other news, the Trump admin welcomed another *convicted* Israeli spy and traitor Jonathan Pollard to the embassy this week. Pollard was convicted of stealing and selling high-level classified intelligence to the Israeli government. Why is he being invited to chum it up with Huckabee at the US embassy in Israel?

Some huge reporting from Drop Site (very good investigative outlet) substantiating the connection between Epstein and Israel. He was very clearly an Israeli asset. Here's a quick video summary discussing the reporting. You can find the details on Drop Site.

Also, this latest email drop basically confirms what we knew all along. Epstein was a Mossad asset running a blackmail racket.

As has been said here a million times, the dems were hesitant to release the full files because many of their donors would go down with the ship. They also didn’t think they needed them. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance in the Dem establishment after 2020. They thought they had proven 2016 was a fluke. There was no reason (in their minds) to burn donor bridges and the Clintons by bringing Epstein back up. Which is 100% an indictment on their character btw. They believe in nothing. It doesn’t change the truth about Trump/Epstein however.

What happens if the sky turns purple? Why entertain hypotheticals that aren't going to happen? You guys act like this guy's a lunatic. He's pragmatic, and very willing to work within the capitalist system. His first viral ad was about how he wants to cut regulations to make street food more affordable (big permitting problem in NYC that drives up prices). That's a free market reform!

It's certainly harder for candidates to win. It takes a special candidate to do that, and regardless of what you think of Mamdani, he's very clearly a real political talent. You've described the case in an overly simple way. The rich don't control things in the sense that they have their hands on a button. They control it because they have the resources to influence the way people think via ads and campaign infrastructure. The billions of dollars they threw at Cuomo didn't work this time for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to: Mamdani ran an amazing campaign Mamdani is incredibly charismatic and likeable NYC is expensive - Mamdani focused his entire campaign on affordability, an issue that affects almost every voter. Cuomo/establishment tried to make this entire campaign about Israel - this issue both affects very few NYC voters directly and Mamdani's position on Israel is the more popular position. Voters see right through that. Cuomo is a disgraced sex pest who killed half the city's grandparents during Covid. The sitting mayor is under indictment for looney tunes-esque corruption. You can't overstate how weak the field was.

Obama cut your taxes. You didn't notice because you were too busy watching fox news.

Crime is a fraction of where it was 30 years ago. It wasn't ignored. It was successfully addressed. You, like most boomers, confuse being able to see videos of things on the internet all the time with "these things are happening all the time." This country is far far safer than when you grew up.

Can you cite your sources here? Pelosi is staunchly against M4A. Only thing I can find about her supporting more healthcare reform is adding a public option to the ACA, but that's not really universal healthcare. That just offers another option to buy health care on the free market. I'm not sure how climate stuff fits in here. I thought we were talking about "socialism" and economic policy. Can you expand on what specifically with her climate position you disagree with? Jefferies explicitly disavowed "defund the police" as a slogan. Can you point to any concrete act he took to do something like this? (also again, not economic policy). Redistribution of wealth agenda is pretty ludicrous. Dude takes more corporate money than anybody. I doubt his economic policy differs at all from GP, Slotkin, Peters, etc... Shumer refused to even endorse Mamdani. I think you need to do a better job at distinguishing between empty symbolic gestures and actual political action. A lot of the issues you mention are just checkbox issues to signal to the general democratic base. You can't be a dem politician if you don't support climate action, healthcare, middle class tax cuts, etc... That doesn't mean you actually believe in those things. Judge politicians on how they vote and lobby for bills that are within the margins of passing and who funds their campaigns. That's how you know what they actually believe in. For example, almost every dem candidate in 2020 claimed to be for some version of M4A. Why? Because it was incredibly popular and the source of Bernie's strength. The second Bernie was defeated, they dropped M4A and the party, with the exception of the small progressive wing, hasn't talked about it since. It's not any less popular. They just don't have to pretend to support it because there isn't a faction powerful enough to make them anymore. None of Harris, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, etc.. ever had any intention of actually trying to pass M4A. Pelosi and Jeffries may say in their comments that they support general principles like equality or climate justice or high taxes or whatever. They wouldn't actually act on those principles if they had the chance. It's empty signaling to their base.

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that millions of people live right on top of each other rather than being spread out over large areas of land?

It's a city of millions of people. Of course there is crime. Do you think crime doesn't exist in the suburbs or rural areas? Also, how is this the result of socialism? As many point out all the time on this forum, historically, socialist governments have no problem throwing people in jail lol.

That's a great point. That's probably why the Democrats typically prioritize cutting middle class taxes.

Sorry, missed that part of your post. But then you post three of the most corporate-backed politicians in the country, regardless of party, as being "not moderate," so while you did acknowledge that reality, you don't seem to understand how to ID the actual examples. If those 3 aren't "moderate," who ARE the dem moderates? Can you give some examples of Newsome's failed "socialist" policies? He's also heavily backed by corporate money. What about Chicago? (Amazing city btw. Was just there a few weeks ago. In my experience, the people who cite Chicago as a disaster city, have never actually been there. It rocks.)

In a few sentences, explain the point you're trying to make.

Mamdani is also a democratic socialist. He's a part of DSA, which explicitly argues for the Scandinavian model. The great thing about democrats advocating for tax increases on the rich, the few who do like Mamdani, is that they also apply to rich democrats. Being rich and advocating for taxes on the rich isn't hypocritical. It's the opposite of that. One of the major flaws in your judgment is that you view the democrats as "the left." They majority of the democratic establishment is center or center-right on an actual political scale. Guys like Mamdani or Sanders are actually "left" on economics (not just social issues) which is why the entire party unites to try to stop them anytime they have success. The establishment of the democratic party (Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries, etc...) probably hates Zohran more than you do. But you do hit on one thing correctly. These issues aren't black or white. Zohran isn't planning to end capitalism in NYC (as if that were even possible). He's arguing for a strong social safety net and public benefits within a market economy, just like the Scandinavian social democracies (and China and Venezuela btw - Capitalism very much exists in those countries too). To act like Mamdani is going to instantly turn NYC into a Communist Muslim Caliphate is just as stupid as the people who thought Trump was going to put every democrat in the country in a death camp or end democracy (except Trump actually does lean into some of that rhetoric because his base likes it).

The highest quality living countries in the world are socialist. You guys complain endlessly about how horrible America is. You seem to have forgotten that it's the most hyper-capitalist country in the world. Maybe smart, educated people see the results of that and are ready to try something new?

It's not "free." It's paid for by the government which is funded by taxes. We all pay a share and we all get to enjoy the benefits. Do you consider the police to be free stuff? What about the fire department? The military? Public parks? Roads?

Yes and yes. The first one is illegal. The second one is tasteless, but legal. I don't think people should lose their jobs for being tasteless. I'm anti-cancel culture. Either the 1st amendment means something or it doesn't. It's ridiculous that students are getting expelled for making jokes. I thought comedy was supposed to be legal again under Trump? Charlie Kirk made jokes about his political enemies dying. Punishing those who do the same is a violation of everything he supposedly stood for.

Why do you think this is a gotcha?

Hmm, I wonder why? I do like handouts though, just not to other countries or the rich. Handouts from the American government should be reserved for the Americans who need them. Argentina engaged in one of the most radical "free-market" experiments in world history and it's failing miserably and now requires government intervention to save. I'm sure you all will learn an important lesson here....