High inflation, rising energy costs around the world, rising food prices, supply chain issues…
These are all policy disasters and they’ve got little to do with what your government says the root causes are.
A thread 🧵 for your awareness 👇
California declaring every new vehicle sold after 2035 must be green, then asking residents to stop charging vehicles when the energy grid is stressed… it’s energy policy is a joke
German energy policy has been a huge disaster in this decade. First think about energy independence, then think about shutting down your nuclear power plants for some green reasons. Don’t put your energy dependence on other nations who could easily take advantage of it 🤷♂️
Follow China 🇨🇳 if possible only for your nuclear energy policy. Don’t follow China for the coal & fossil fuel based energy policy. China has been the largest green house gas emitter and they need to bring this down drastically.
Way too much power is given to oil producing nations like Saudi 🇸🇦
Nations should be slowly weaning off fossil fuels. They should have strategic reserves of oil stored. Nations should not stop drilling for oil & not stop pipeline projects until they’re energy independent.
The west should be wise enough to play their energy cards close to their chest rather than giving it away to a mad man… they can’t do much now. They’ve dug themselves into a hole.
This is what happens to countries who have thoughtless irresponsible short term energy policies 🤷♂️
Venezuela 🇻🇪 the worlds largest crude oil reserves state… its bankrupt right now. That’s the power of sanctions. US and it’s allies pretty much pushed Venezuela into a death spiral and to top it all off they can’t access their own gold worth $1.8 billion sitting in BOE vaults
German parties this winter 😂
Hahaha 😂😂
What happens if you go 💯 electric
People are burning their energy bills in Naples as a protest to high energy prices. Playing #CatchMeIfYouCan with the energy companies 😂
Few ways out…
- Energy companies go bankrupt
- Reduce energy bills (print money)
- Do the right thing (policy)
Energy bills going up from 60k to 420k pounds for this one pub. Consider leaving a big tip next time.
In just three months as the 47th President, Donald Trump has governed with a ferocity that seems fueled by the trials of his past—indictments, investigations, assassination attempts, and impeachments—emerging not as a man diminished, but as one emboldened to deliver on his promises with unrelenting focus. His campaign pledges, once dismissed by critics as bombastic rhetoric, are materializing at a breakneck pace, reflecting a leader who thrives under pressure and channels adversity into action. From sweeping border security measures to economic policies aimed at revitalizing American industry, Trump’s early tenure feels like a defiant rebuttal to those who doubted his resolve, proving that the chaos of his journey has only sharpened his determination to reshape the nation in his image.
What’s most striking is how Trump has turned promises into tangible outcomes, defying the inertia that often bogs down presidencies. He’s tackled illegal immigration with a vigor that’s already shifting the landscape, while imposing tariffs to bolster domestic production, moves that echo his “America First” mantra and resonate with a base hungry for results. Gas, grocery and egg prices have eased, a practical win for everyday Americans, while his administration’s bold strokes—like dismantling bureaucratic excess and confronting global adversaries—signal a rejection of the status quo. For a man who’s faced relentless scrutiny, Trump’s first 90 days suggest not just survival, but a triumphant assertion of his vision, delivering a governance style as unapologetic and unconventional as the path that brought him back to power.
The statement that "more squirrels and raccoons have been arrested than Epstein clients" highlights a stark disparity between the enforcement of minor, even absurd, regulations and the apparent reluctance to pursue justice against powerful individuals implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network. In late 2024, the case of Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon captured public attention when New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation raided Mark Longo’s home, seizing and euthanizing these animals over claims of illegal possession and rabies risks. The operation involved multiple agents and hours of effort, showcasing a swift and decisive response to what many saw as a trivial violation. This incident, amplified by social media outrage, underscores how authorities can mobilize resources to "arrest" or address wildlife-related issues, even when the targets are harmless pets, while seemingly ignoring far graver human crimes.
In contrast, the Epstein case—despite overwhelming evidence of a sex trafficking operation involving influential figures—has seen remarkably little accountability for his clients. Epstein, a financier with ties to politicians, billionaires, and royalty, was arrested in 2019 and died in custody, officially ruled a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound. Court documents unsealed in recent years name numerous associates, yet few, if any, of these high-profile individuals have faced arrest or prosecution. The disparity fuels public frustration: while a squirrel’s fate can prompt a government raid, the powerful men who allegedly exploited minors alongside Epstein remain largely untouchable, shielded by wealth, status, or legal loopholes. This juxtaposition paints a compelling picture of a system that prioritizes the enforcement of petty rules over the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes, leaving society to question where true accountability lies.
The influence of corporate money in politics is a pervasive force that often shapes government inaction on issues like genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Companies like Bayer and Monsanto, with their deep pockets and extensive lobbying networks, have the resources to sway policymakers in their favor. They contribute millions to political campaigns, ensuring that elected officials remain sympathetic to their interests. This financial leverage creates a system where legislation or regulation that might harm these corporations’ bottom lines—such as banning or heavily restricting GMOs—is quietly sidelined. The revolving door between government agencies and corporate boardrooms only deepens this entanglement, as former industry executives often take regulatory roles, bringing their biases with them.
Beyond direct political influence, these corporations have mastered the art of shaping public perception through partnerships with universities and media outlets. By funding research at academic institutions, they can produce studies that downplay or dismiss health concerns related to GMOs, lending a veneer of scientific legitimacy to their products. These studies are then amplified by media campaigns, often subtly sponsored or influenced by the same corporations, to reassure the public that GMOs are safe and necessary for feeding a growing population. Dissenting voices—independent researchers or whistleblowers raising red flags about potential health risks—are drowned out or discredited, leaving regulators with a convenient excuse: the “science” isn’t conclusive enough to justify action.
Finally, the government’s inertia can be attributed to a broader economic calculus that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term public health. GMOs are deeply embedded in the agricultural industry, which contributes significantly to GDP and employs millions. Disrupting this system by cracking down on GMO foods would ripple through the economy, threatening jobs, trade relationships, and corporate profits—consequences no administration wants to face. Politicians, wary of being labeled as anti-business or anti-progress, opt for the path of least resistance, allowing these food giants to operate with minimal oversight. Meanwhile, any evidence of harm to human health is buried under bureaucratic delays or dismissed as anecdotal, preserving the status quo where profit trumps precaution.