Politicians are so blatantly corrupt in many ways. Some seek re-election repeatedly despite the fact that they messed things up, didn’t implement anything they promised.
It’s people to blame for getting them elected. Helping other countries while ignoring your own has been the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Despite windfall profits for Norfolk Southern and $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill for Buttigieg, they have done nothing to protect our communities, with over 1,000 derailments in 1 year!
PA Governor Josh Shapiro signed off on the #ControlledBurn in Ohio East Palestine. Apparently what they said was a success, turned out to be anything but that 🤷♂️
When they block lawsuits, they are guilty
When they have immunity, they are hiding truth
When they say its #SafeAndEffective, it's not
Our Needs:
We want secure borders, clear skies, clean water & air, reduced debt, zero drugs, low inflation, no wars & funding wars, no unnecessary spending, no pronouns, no indoctrination in schools, energy independence, no covert operations, no #MilitaryIndustrialComplex, no… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Politicians priorities
With a capable president:
- The most powerful building on earth
With Joe Biden in it:
- The most expensive nursing home
The whole country is on fire and your president Joe Biden couldn’t care less
For your leaders ((Ukraine >> USA))
For your politicians Ukraine >> USA
Politicians rule book.
A simple guide to a politicians mind.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The failure to name, defame, indict, or arrest the clients of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean "Diddy" Combs, despite their own high-profile arrests, points to a troubling pattern of selective accountability that protects the powerful. This seems to run across party lines, not specific to Democrat or Republican. These individuals operated within elite circles, allegedly facilitating or engaging in egregious acts of exploitation and trafficking, yet the focus remains narrowly on them as individuals rather than the broader networks they served. The clients—often wealthy, influential figures in politics, business, or entertainment—appear shielded by a system that prioritizes discretion over justice. This suggests a deliberate effort to limit exposure, perhaps to avoid destabilizing institutions or reputations tied to these networks. The lack of transparency fuels suspicion that those in power are complicit in preserving a status quo where the elite evade scrutiny, leaving only the orchestrators to face consequences while their patrons remain untouched.
This disparity in accountability undermines public trust in the justice system and perpetuates a culture of impunity for the privileged. If Epstein, Maxwell, and Combs were indeed central to criminal enterprises, their clients were not mere bystanders but active participants who enabled and benefited from these schemes. The absence of indictments or even public naming of these individuals raises questions about whether investigations are intentionally curtailed to protect those with the means to influence outcomes. Systemic barriers, such as sealed records, private settlements, or prosecutorial reluctance to challenge powerful figures, may be at play, ensuring that the client lists remain shrouded in secrecy. By failing to pursue these clients, authorities risk signaling that justice is a privilege reserved for the few, leaving victims without full reckoning and society grappling with the unsettling reality that some are above the law.
A thread on Epstein, Maxwell, Diddy and their criminal elite sex trafficking networks👇
The National Institutes of Health has shut down research labs accused of conducting deadly experiments on thousands of beagles over the past 40+ years.
EACH AND EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT TRIES TO SOLVE A PROBLEM, THEY END UP CREATING MORE
Chaos: Governments, in their attempt to impose order, often create chaos by disrupting established systems. For example, a sudden policy to nationalize industries can lead to mismanagement, supply chain breakdowns, and public unrest as businesses struggle to adapt.
Assault: Governments may use force to enforce laws, sometimes escalating to violence against citizens. For instance, during protests, police deployed by the state might use tear gas or batons, injuring peaceful demonstrators.
Theft: Through taxation or seizure, governments can take property without consent, resembling theft. An example is eminent domain, where a person's home is taken for public projects, often with inadequate compensation.
Extortion: Governments can pressure individuals or businesses for money or compliance under threat of punishment. For example, a small business might face hefty fines or closure unless it pays inflated licensing fees demanded by local officials.
Intimidation: State authorities may intimidate citizens to suppress dissent or enforce compliance. A citizen criticizing government policy online might receive threatening visits from law enforcement, discouraging free speech.
Collusion: Governments can collude with private entities to prioritize elite interests over the public. For instance, a government might award contracts to a favored corporation in exchange for political donations, sidelining fair competition.
Discrimination: Policies may unfairly target or exclude certain groups, fostering inequality. An example is a law banning specific religious practices, disproportionately harming minority communities while favoring others.
Trauma: Government actions, like forced displacements or aggressive policing, can inflict emotional and physical trauma. For example, children separated from parents during immigration enforcement may suffer long-term psychological harm.
Tyranny: Overreaching authority can lead to oppressive rule, stifling freedoms. A government imposing strict curfews and censoring media to control a crisis can erode personal liberties, resembling tyrannical rule.
Death: In extreme cases, government actions result in loss of life. For instance, a poorly planned military operation to address insurgency might lead to civilian casualties due to collateral damage.
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.