A_Wild_Zeus_Chase

Setting goals that matter to you, and then working to achieve them.

Succeed in school. Get a good job. Find a partner. Have close friends. Have a hobby. Be involved in your community. Become a professional athlete. Become the leader of your country. Smoke a bunch of weed, play video games, and do as little work as possible.

All of those things can be parts of a meaningful life, as long as they are things you value.

Each of us gives your own life meaning by the goals we set for ourselves.

There’s no singular meaning, just like there’s no singular life.

Lol, not engaging with any of the specific counterpoints I made because you know your wrong, and instead using a throwaway line to hide your own incompetence?

Yea, that’s about all I expected, because that’s all your good for

In order:

1.No

2. To be a joke it would have to be funny

3. yes because federal agents can operate locally anywhere, which is obvious to anyone but the village idiot

4. As you said, they “have to” cooperate, which kind of goes against your point of them being willing

5. America absolutely has been facist for generations, but more so in republican administrations (gauntenmo and patriot act under bush, Nixon shooting protestors, and now)

6. black sites were Chicago PD operated, Obama had nothing to do with them.

7. Put your dunce cap back on and go sit in the corner

I’m all for sanctioning authoritarian oligarchies, but unfortunately for you, that is the Trump administration.

US cabinet average wealth by far the highest in US history? Oligopoly

Armed masked men are abducting US citizens into unmarked vans? Authoritarian

NYC has neither of those things. Nice try though?

Life was better when people like you were just known as village idiots and we could chuck produce at you whenever you spoke so you knew your opinions were comically stupid

In referring to my above comments, you’ll note I never said they did do something, only that IF they did do it, they had the capabilities in place to do so without leaving a trace.

My issue is only with the top commenters phrase “bring receipts”.

The article author address this pretty thoroughly in why that’s not possible, referencing publicly available information.

The top commenter seemed to deliberately disregard that point

Condensed quote below.

“ According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include… most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints””

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, that is from their own press release.

So you say “where are the receipts?”. And their press release explicitly says “we are bringing in this company to erase receipts”. To which you respond “where are the receipts”.

To echo your statement, do you see how this might appear as willful misunderstanding to an outside observer?

Did you read the article? Relevant section below:

“Let’s be clear, Palantir wasn’t brought in for customer service. It was brought in to do what it does best: manage, shape, and secure vast streams of data—quietly. According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include: AI-driven oversight of connected infrastructures Automated analysis of large datasets And—most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints”

The Digital Janitor:also known as forensic sanitization, it was now being embedded into Eaton-managed hardware connected directly to voting systems. Palantir didn’t change the votes. It helped ensure you’d never prove it if someone else did.”

Nothing by itself. But if it can encourage other senators to filibuster, and more importantly, to organize to filibuster together , the impact could be paralyzing.

To take an obvious example, for half a century, from say 1910 to 1964-5, there were more than enough votes in the US senate to enact civil rights legislation, as southerners only made up 22 or so of the 96-100 senators then (no Hawaii or Alaska for part of that).

But that legislation never happened. And the reason why it didn’t was that southern senators were able to filibuster so effectively that the legislation could never be brought to the floor, or to force its withdrawal if it got there.

It’s not that the votes on that specific bill weren’t there. It’s just that under the leadership of Sen Richard Russel of Georgia (who the “Russel Senate Office Building” is named after), the southern senators understood the way to block legislation was to filibuster not just the bill in question, but any law that was about to lapse that was so important economically that senators couldn’t afford to let that happen.

So they organized, filibustered key bills, set up “watches” where at least one senator had to be on the floor to defeat any quorum calls (which ends a filibuster, as you do not actually have to be talking to filibuster a bill), and filibustered not just votes on key bills, but even votes on motions to bring those bills out of committee to the floor.

Moreover, since these filibusters weren’t on the bill itself, it was easy for an individual senator to say they were against another bill, or another motion, and make it seem like an unrelated objection, when it was really all part of a comprehensive strategy.

Eventually, the impending economic doom created enough pressure to get any civil rights bill withdrawn in order to let those other bills pass, which was the southerners asking price.

Obviously, the democrats now aren’t doing that. But they could. And by generating headlines by filibustering, he encourages other senators to do so, if only for popularity.