epbart

Not a bad idea even though you're getting a bunch of DVs.

In other contexts, I avoid calling politicians, businessmen, and celebrities "elites" since their success is often more a function of connections than anything that might make them superior in a meaningful way to others... imho, they're better described as a parasitic class than elites, given that their influence, power, and wealth is often siphoned from others the way a parasite siphons blood or vitality out of its host.

Back to your specific point, the Left has politically (emotionally) charged "illegal alien" as you suggest. Your downvoters are perhaps just reticent to cede ground in what they consider an accurate term. They aren't wrong, and "illegal alien" has its place.

It is helpful, though, to understand the language games the Left plays as I think you're trying to do (for another example: the Left also likes to call genital mutilation "gender-affirming care"). And you're right that some on the Left-- because of their conditioning-- will reflexively become sympathetic to this class of criminals... or, they'll become outright belligerent and unable to hear reason.

... So, to this end, for anyone who wants or needs to engage with those on the other side of the argument, it is absolutely useful to have an array of terms to describe illegal aliens-- including "foreign nationals" or just "foreigners". Using subtlety to start a conversation can help bypass the Leftist mind firewall and allow you to sneak a payload of reason into the conversation before their mind shuts down and blocks out everything you say afterwards. But when you want to be blunt, "illegal alien" will do.

quote:

---

Is this another boomer thread?

---

Sorta... but no.

Suits are certainly not as needed as they once were between lax dress standards at the office and work from home. Many men may only need one or two, but there is still absolute value in having a solid selection of suits in certain white collar professions.

Yes, if you know your measurements, and have done your homework to know what the current trends with cut and lengths are (i suppose AI can help these days), you can buy online and hopefully just get minimal work done by a tailor. If you only need one or two suits for rare occasions like weddings... and if you don't mind looking less than perfect... this is good enough.

If you want/need more than that, though, and if you've grown past buying Kenneth Cole suits, there was/is value in knowing a guy at a menswear store (including higher end department stores like Saks) who knows his stuff.

A well trained guy (after trying to impress you by guessing your size), can guide you on the pros and cons of English vs Italian vs American cut suits and how they look on you and what sort of messaging they send to the people around you. They'll ask about how/where you wear them to guide on suit weight (like super 100s vs 110s, etc). They'll further guide you on what brands and cuts look best on you... 15 years ago or so, I thought I might like a Brioni suit. The guy working with me didn't think it was a great idea (I can't remember why) and when I tried it on, sure enough, it just didn't look as good on me as other mid to high end brands.

Tldr: if you are in a profession that requires suits, a good menswear guy is a great resource. At a certain point, attention to detail about your appearance can have value with who you're interacting with... and women tend to notice, too.

quote:

---

During the Q era, or, hell, now currently, which of the Q types are making this separation?

This is a new angle indeed.

---

First, I'm not a Q follower so am not overly familiar with their framing.

Second... New angle? All I'm doing is trying to precisely recall the specifics of that now deleted thread off the top of my head. Normally, I would think you would agree precision matters in such topics. It would not occur to me to consider this a new angle except that you just brought a new allegation... that Epstein's emails (which don't have the code words used by the Comet Pizza crowd) somehow disproves the validity of Pizzagate... Using the absence of something somewhere to positively prove the invalidity of something somewhere else is a helluva stretch. This allegation demands clarity-- thus the distinction I now make.

To my memory, there is overlap in the broader social group-- especially through the Clintons. There are common elements in the potential abuse that is described in both Pizzagate and in the Epstein case. But I don't remember Epstein being mentioned as a big Comet Pizza attendee. To the extent he was brought up in the Q thread, I think it was usually specifically as its own line item. Only then was it generalized and lumped in with Pizzagate so the broad brush of systemic rot could be painted over the whole government.

If that's true, I don't see why I should conflate them as the same? They appear discrete. If Epstein was at Comet Pizza a lot, you'd have to prove it and provide context, including samples of messages between Epstein and the Comet Pizza crowd so we can discern what's there and not there to substantiate your claim.

Interesting connections only go so far if they aren't corroborated. It's simple logic, not a new angle.

So, I repeat, based on what's available currently, you absolutely cannot disprove potential Pizzagate allegations in DC through the absence of specific elements of discourse in the Epstein files, and what happened in NYC, his island, etc.

quote:

---

I agree with Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I can't believe it took this long for someone to finally post the correct answer.

---

This is satisfactory as an answer if you understand what Jefferson means by happiness.

For one, he appears to be riffing on John Locke's: “life, liberty and estate (property).”

Secondly, Jefferson, like many of the Founding Fathers, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, by Aristotle and Epicurus, in particular.

So, if you google, "what is happiness as a motive to human affairs according to thomas jefferson", the generated answer, supported by a number of sources is:

quote:

---

According to Thomas Jefferson, happiness as a motive in human affairs is not a state of fleeting pleasure, ease, or selfish indulgence, but rather eudaemonia—a profound, lifelong pursuit of virtue, moral purpose, and human flourishing. Drawing from classical Greek philosophy, Epicureanism, and the Enlightenment, Jefferson viewed this pursuit as an active, disciplined commitment to personal improvement and service to the common good.

Here is a breakdown of happiness as a motive in human affairs according to Jefferson:
1. The Core Definition: Eudaemonia and Virtue
Virtue as Foundation: Jefferson believed that virtue was the foundation of true happiness. He famously wrote that "without virtue, happiness cannot be".
Active Pursuit: It is not a passive state to be achieved, but a continuous,, active pursuit.
Not Materialistic: Jeffersonian happiness is distinct from the pursuit of wealth or "worldly possessions". It was defined by "tranquility and occupation" (meaning purposeful activity) rather than "wealth or splendor".

2. Happiness as a Human Motivation
A "Soul Condition": It is a state of the soul that arises from living in harmony with conscience, reason, and moral purpose.
Service and Employment: Jefferson felt that a mind always employed is always happy, suggesting that purposeful work is a primary driver of happiness.
Individual and Collective Good: The pursuit of happiness includes contributing to the greater good, not just personal satisfaction.

3. Happiness and Government
Purpose of Government: Jefferson maintained that the "only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it".
Protection, Not Provision: The government's role is not to provide happiness (as it is not owed to anyone), but to protect the freedom in which citizens can pursue it.
"Rights" to Pursuit: He deemed the "pursuit of happiness" an inalienable right, implying that individuals must be free from oppression (a "disruption of energies") to pursue their own thriving.

4. Philosophical Influences
Epicureanism: In his later life, Jefferson identified as an Epicurean, which in his view meant a rational, gentle philosophy focusing on friendship, limiting desires to necessities, and achieving peace of mind.
Stoicism/Ancient Philosophy: He was heavily influenced by Cicero and other classical thinkers who emphasized that happiness is a result of a good conscience and self-discipline.

In summary, for Jefferson, happiness is the ultimate human endeavor that drives individuals to develop their talents, act with integrity, and contribute to the community, while the government's role is to ensure the liberty to do so.

---

If you google "what is happiness as a motive to human affairs according to Aristotle", the answer will be very similar.

In short, there was a very strong, ethical and moral dimension that informed Jefferson's interesting deviation in word choice away from Locke's assertion. Understanding this notion of happiness, it is clear that there is a dutiful component to it-- a responsibility as to how we conduct our affairs and how we treat one another... and that the harmony that arises from this way of life generates true happiness. Happiness, to Jefferson, is not just selfishly engaging in pleasurable activity.

quote:

---

For much of the last year, staffers who were initially part of the Department of Government Efficiency effort improperly accessed and shared sensitive personal data on millions of Americans.

---

If it was established and performed within the DOGE framework as established by President Trump, it was not improperly accessed or shared.

quote:

---

The Trump administration hasn't been able to answer how much data is at risk, what it was used for or why its unprecedented efforts to consolidate data are needed.

---

How much data is at risk? Perhaps none if it was properly accessed and collected within the established framework of DOGE. Otherwise, the mission of DOGE is/was to identify waste and fraud in the pursuit of improving government efficiency, which answers the other sensationalized, abstract hypotheticals. I fail to see a problem if the work was done as ordered.

quote:

---

Those questions deepened last week, when the Social Security Administration said it discovered DOGE employees at the agency secretly and improperly shared sensitive personal data last year, but once again can't verify the extent of the violations. The admission came in a court filing last Friday, Jan. 16, that made numerous corrections to testimony given by top agency officials last year in a lawsuit alleging that DOGE was illegally accessing Social Security data.

---

The work was ordered by the Executive branch. Secretly isn't necessarily a problem if it precluded bad actors from hiding data. Further, secretly applies to investigations as well, and if DOGE disclosed to the SSA that they were investigating waste and fraud, I don't see why they should be compelled to divulge all of their processes and other information that the SSA didn't need to know.

Again, improperly isn't accurate if DOGE team members worked within the DOGE framework. If the executive branch ordered it, it is arguable at best to call it illegal. There may have been an authority / jurisdictional dispute as to how much DOGE could do, but this is not some blatantly criminal undertaking.

quote:

---

The unnamed employees secretly conferred with a political advocacy group about a request to match Social Security data with state voter rolls to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," the filing said. It remains unclear whether any data actually went to this group.

---

If whatever consultancy between DOGE members and others was allowed / encouraged by the executive branch for guidance about how to identify waste and fraud, I don't see an issue. If the intent was the to find fraud... and if they find fraud, I don't see an issue. If they don't find fraud, then that isn't a problem either. And if they only consulted with the advocacy group but didn't share it, then there isn't a problem, and that's a baseless allegation.

quote:

---

"Based on its review of records obtained during or after October 2025, SSA identified communications, use of data, and other actions by the then-SSA DOGE Team that were potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with the District Court's March 20, 2025, temporary restraining order," DOJ attorneys wrote.

---

They were commissioned to do this work by DOGE under the direction of the Executive branch. If they performed this work correctly under the framework of DOGE, then "potentially outside of SSA policy" sounds irrelevant, and "potentially [noncompliant with the 3/32/2035 TRO]" sounds like a very vague, unsubstantiated accusation.

quote:

---

DOGE team members also circumvented IT rules to improperly share data on outside servers, sent a password-protected file of private records to DOGE affiliates outside the agency

---

If DOGE members followed their framework and mission to collect and investigate SSA data, it unavoidably circumvents IT rules to not share data with outside servers. In that context, every time the FBI or other forensic investigators have to perform a data collection, the act inherently ignores or circumvents internal IT rules that employees are bound by if the company or organization doesn't want to share that data.

quote:

---

This board treated Hillary’s private server like Watergate.
The same people are now completely unbothered by government affiliates improperly exporting private records to outside servers and circumventing IT protections.

---

In one case (Hillary), the data never lived in its proper place, where it would have been subject to proper retention policies and would have been subject to being produced in inquiries and investigations. Personal emails were intentionally and illegally used to avoid oversight and an unsecure server was illegally set up to house classified information.

In the other case, the executive branch launched an investigation into fraud and waste and DOGE employees, so long as they followed their framework, were following orders to access and investigate sensitive personal info (SSN#s) to identify waste and fraud. Even if they did not find voter fraud in this way, they did discover fraudulent or errant payments were being sent to dead people, and helped the SSA and FedGov save money.

One instance was an overtly illegal act to avoid accountability-- arguably to cover for other illegal activity. The other was only potentially illegal-- not in a criminal way-- but in an arguable context of how much authority DOGE workers have to carry out their mission when it conflicts with an organization's internal guidelines. There is no fraudulent element here the way there is in the other.

Comparing these two things seriously would be unintelligent.

quote:

---

If the authorities are able to find the kidnapper through this BTC wallet the veil of security using BTC will evaporate.

Or...

If the authorities cannot trace him through the BTC wallet it will reinforce the security.

---

All bitcoin (BTC) transactions are recorded on the BTC blockchain, which is copied / replicated on a countless number of nodes. Any public, full node is adequate for anyone, including anyone here (not just law enforcement), to do on-chain analysis of transactions... if you have the right tools and know what you're doing.

So, it isn’t necessarily difficult for anyone to know when $1 million in BTC hits an account. In fact, there is something of a cottage industry of crypto nerds viewing the network to see when large amounts of BTC move across the network-- especially on and off exchanges-- and certain addresses/accounts become monitored by other investors as they are believed to be market makers or "whales" and activity in such accounts may signal price might move up or down quickly.

That being said, while the chain of transactions itself is public, and the activity of a whale account might be easy to monitor, the owner of a given account is not necessarily easy to know. Identities are comprised of a public address / key (sort of like an account number and also sort of like your username on here) and your private key (like a password).

If someone used a US based exchange like Coinbase, which requires Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, then they will have to have provided ID to make an account and establish a public key. If they did this, they would be easy to track if law enforcement can determine the account is associated with a crime and is on Coinbase. If they used a foreign exchange that does not require KYC and isn't responsive to US law enforcement, they make it harder to find out who they are. If they create their BTC keys with an offline method-- usually using a hardware wallet or the old school paper method-- they can possibly leave even less of a trail to connect the address to them.

So, it is possible for a given criminal to actively move specific amounts money all over the chain in a notable way since all transactions on the chain, but that doesn't necessarily make it easy to pin their identity and LEO will be left watching with frustration... unless / until they move it out of the network to a bank or in some other type of transaction (like buying peptides with BTC online and providing a physical address that LEO can somehow obtain). If I'm not mistaken, this is where it usually goes wrong for criminals who get caught.

But also, though the BTC blockchain itself is visible, I think the Lightning Network that was built on it is less visible with regards to how easily money can be tracked. And if they convert their BTC into Monero or any other number of other crypto projects, some of which purposefully bundle transactions into larger baskets to blend and blur identities, they can further obscure the money trail and eventually convert to cash.

In short, no, this case will not "evaporate" the security or anonymity of BTC. If / when they are caught and details of how they were caught get leaked, it'll just be a lesson to future criminals of what not to do.

quote:

---

Even posting about it before the show might be considered more of a lobbying effort to get others to join in the movement and would thus not qualify.

This is always the goal of virtue signaling

---

More technically, you're partially correct in effect. But you're specifically wrong in intent.

The goal of lobbying is to convert people into being true believers. Band wagon sorts and virtue signallers are welcome as useful idiots. But in an ideal world, the people promoting the movement would probably, if asked, prefer genuine believers.

So, no. :lol: :lol: :lol:

quote:

---

Put a dent in the Super Bowl? Not likely
Might it still be a success? Sure. Lots of emotional types are not watching the Super Bowl and may watch this to engage in virtue signaling.

---

Your use of virtue signalling here is only partially correct at best. Virtue signalling usually has an outward clout chasing component... like putting a Ukraine flag on your bio so everyone can see how virtuous you are despite you having to do nothing. For those who decide to change the channel who are by themselves or in small groups of friends watching together, there won't really be any social status or clout to gain by switching over to Kid Rock or whatever else... therefore there isn't much of a "signal".

There will be some shallow followers who do it, but this isn't quite virtue signalling. Even posting about it before the show might be considered more of a lobbying effort to get others to join in the movement and would thus not qualify. The act itself of switching channels is not virtue signalling. Only those who go on X or wherever afterwards bragging about switching the channel will really be virtue signalling (there will be some to be fair... and if they're successful, there will be some gloating, but that's different, too).

I was having some trouble thinking of what it should be called, and so did ask Grok for guidance. Aside from being a type of boycott, Grok suggested it might be...

quote:

---

A more fitting term for this kind of largely unseen, individual action might be "political consumerism" or "ethical consumption choice"—where people align their private behaviors (like viewing habits) with their values to "vote with their attention" or wallet, without needing an audience. If it's shallow or done just to feel part of a movement without deeper commitment, it could border on "slacktivism" (low-effort activism that feels good but achieves little), though slacktivism often has a minimal public component like sharing a post. Ultimately, the label depends on the motivation: genuine principle versus self-satisfaction or group conformity.

---

I may or may not change the channel myself, and am not overly concerned with how successful this halftime boycott ends up being. I'm sure there will be some virtue signalling, but the broad sweep of how you applied it is presumptive and misleading. If you're going to label people with any sort of insult, you should take care to be more accurate.

quote:

---

You could say he's [Kid Rock is] the Sarah Stock of Millennial rap-rock political personalities.

---

This is a flat out terrible comparison.

Someone lying and living a double-life while reaping rewards from the community making her famous (Stock) =/= someone who made a temporary boycott of a product and went back to consuming it after they changed their advertising approach. You can read my longer opinion in full in my post above this one to Boomer. Boycotts can absolutely be temporary.

quote:

---

We’re all in trouble if they put a penis on that thing

---

quote:

---

No one loves a purity test more than a leftist

---

By definition, out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

quote:

---

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

---

citizen's handbook

Or, stated another way on another website...

quote:

---

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

---

LINK

It helps to know what you're fighting against, so this is worth repeating for those who don't know.

--------

As for Kid Rock, was never a fan, but don't mind him either. There is value in having celebs of every stripe to broaden the appeal of the Republican/MAGA tent.

I feel the same about Nikki Minaj... though in her case, I'm actually a little more encouraged that she may have sort of woken up to what's going on. I think she didn't expect the vicious backlash she faced from the media when she spoke out against the vax a few years back. If she was on the fence before-- or just not that political-- I suspect that wake-up call made her take a turn towards common sense and decency (despite the vulgarity of some of her music).

Christianity should be welcoming for those who genuinely want what's best for their brothers and sisters in humanity. There shouldn't be an expectation of perfection from one another, but there should be a basic respect for everyone's humanity. The Christian Right therefore can succeed in looking past disagreements in ideology (lewd content in this case) to see the human decency in an artist. This is something the Left cannot currently do: if you don't adhere to their ideology, they purposefully dehumanize you.