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.
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.
They're not disputing ultra pasteurization, but due to the new lack of control implementation, it doesn't necessarily have to happen making it no different than the rush associated with regular milk.
https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/natural-sciences/animals/mammals/why-zebras-were-never-domesticated-like-horses/