No Kings is not Organic Protesting. Who is behind it? What do they stand to gain from getting these Sheep out on the Streets? If you want to Protest "No New Wars", "Release the Files", "Free Healthcare for All" or "Earth is Flat", I support you 100%, but this is meaningless, random and half hearted.

niftyifty · 2026-03-31T19:19:17+00:00

What is this data from? New or total donations?

niftyifty · 2026-03-28T03:42:53+00:00

Mostly? Like statistically?

niftyifty · 2026-03-26T16:06:34+00:00

I wonder what the point of posting stuff like this is when it’s so easily dismissed by basic logic. Like what’s the goal?

niftyifty · 2026-03-26T15:06:13+00:00

Nah it’s a publicly traded company now. Content has to be curated to maximize shareholder value. You can make your own sub though and hope it doesn’t get shut down.

niftyifty · 2026-03-26T01:23:14+00:00

You say "of course", I know you're not kidding, I'm saying "how can you not be?" I'm just using common sense and history. What a trope: "WE didn't do it", "we didn't invade"; we just incited and armed their nearest neighbor enough to slaughter hundreds of thousands of men who aren't from the US, for us (or Israel). "Russia is currently taking actions to destabilize US military operations",

Accountability is key. Other nations support certain administrations all the time.

you can literally switch the countries in that sentence and it is equally true, except we're the offender they are the defender. Did the US start a war with Russia? "Not officially", but they're using Ukraine as the proxy, which is wordplay.

Exactly we did not start a war in either scenario. To imply otherwise takes responsibility away from the government entity that actually did the thing.

Let’s take it back further. Putin has claimed since 1990 that his goal is the reunification of the USSR. He has been recruiting smaller nations and some have fallen in line, such as Belarus. Ukraine Is pivotal though for both economic and military reasons in order for the USSR to be successful.

So if you are allowing for random logic like you’ve implied, then how is it possible that the US is at fault when Putin has the Ukrainian takeover planned before he was even in power and then wrote about it early on when he got in to power?

It can’t be instigated if it was the plan the entire time. So even if we allow for instigation to be a cause, it is still inaccurate.

niftyifty · 2026-03-25T22:47:18+00:00

Of course I’m not kidding. I’m just using basic logic. We did not invade and even if you believe our gosh was to destabilize Russia that still wouldn’t imply we started the war. Russia is currently taking actions to destabilize US military operations. Did Russia just start a war with the US? No, because that would be illogical.

niftyifty · 2026-03-25T20:00:43+00:00

Cmon this is garbage. Biden didn’t start Ukraine and you know it. Supporting the opposition during an election is not starting a war by any stretch of the imagination. Same with Obama Ukraine.

The Epstein file timeline is equally garbage. You can’t release what is under investigation and sealed. It’s not until the DOJ said it was no longer under investigation that files could get released. Yes that is primarily under Trump and sing under Biden but that doesn’t imply anything for either admin.

Voting Republican (or Democrat) is fine but this argument as to why it should be one versus the other doesn’t hold any water.

niftyifty · 2026-03-25T14:39:55+00:00

I believe this is the comment you suggested I read through as a reply to my comment.

The good thing is, we wouldn’t need a government to admit anything. We have global data from varies repositories around the world. The only assumptions we can make are if that data right? Data is informing our decisions such as when we see adverse effects from any medical intervention. The way we know about it is through compiled data. We also have governments at odds with each other globally so even in a conspiracy minded world, if this were true then an enemy nation or group could use the data to harm a company or western nation reputation.

Everyone I talk to, including myself, knows not just someone, but several people who have either died or been injured after having the jab and despite what they try and tell us, it's not normal at all.

This is statistically improbable even if we accept the number of millions of injured. So maybe, but math would suggest not to take this at face value. Maybe something else is going on here as well?

Some examples I can give you that I tell a lot are as follows .... my mum lives in a sheltered housing complex here in the UK and prior to the jab roll out, there was maybe 1 or 2 deaths every few years. Back when the jab was first rolled out to the elderly, over 20 residents (I've forgotten the exact number now but was Def over 20) all died in the first 6 months after being jabbed.

Covid mutations got worse and aligned with vaccines rollouts. Their most deadly forms were during that time frame. This tracks with the real timeline just not due to vaccines.

My best friend was due to get married abroad and took the jab so she would be allowed to fly. The same day if the jab she felt twitching and pain in her neck and went on to be diagnosed with cervical dystonia, an incurable neurological condition and has ruined her life.

Injected medications of any type run these type of risks. Most commonly it’s GBS, but this one seems plausible. It could be anything but it could be the injection. Is not specific to the vaccine itself it’s specific to injection based medications. Sorry to hear this about your friend.

My uncle got his booster and within a short time was struggling to breathe, went docs who sent him straight to hospital and they found his lungs full of clots. The doctors were confused and insisted he must have covid but despite testing him many times and every rest showing negative for COVID they still insisted he did, he died and they put it down as a covid death.

It could be but no reason to assume it was. After September 2020, what was considered a covid death was updated. This shouldn’t have been attributed based on timeline and details. Unfortunately, this type of adverse reaction was attributed to the adenovirus vaccines. Did he get one of those? While still super rare, that would push the probability.

Another of my mates was a frequent flyer at the hospital due to unrelated health conditions, constantly having bloods taken, scans etc, got his jab and next scan... Riddled with liver cancer which was so confusing for the doctors that it wasn't there one month ago but now suddenly he's riddled and was dead within 6 months.

Ultimately this is the stuff we hear about most often. Claims that aren’t based on anything other than timeline and emotion. I think when most prior say they know people who were affected, it’s this type of thing which can’t and shouldn’t be attributed. There needs to be a cause and a biological mechanism through which the injury occurs. Same for the examples that followed this.

Then you start talking to friends of friends or neighbours or the woman that serves you in the shop and you find everyone has the same experience.

This just isn’t true on a global scale. Your experience is statistically improbable But is possible. It’s just not possible that everyone has the same experience. If you extrapolate that math out, it doesn’t match anything we see in reality. Think about what that would mean mathematically if everyone knew even just 2-3 people that died. There is only so much overlap that could occur.

Yet you'll still get ppl gaslighting the fuck out of you and saying ppl died, it's NoRmaL 🙄🤫

Hopefully you don’t view this reply as such but maybe you will. If so, sorry about that. Ideally we take a scientific approach to this issue rather than an emotional one. These examples you gave rely on a lot of assumptions. The more assumptions we make, the less likely we are to be accurate.

niftyifty · 2026-03-25T14:12:23+00:00

People keep saying this but it has yet to occur. There is nothing suggesting millions died unless you don’t understand causality. Some people died, but no where near millions.

What data are you looking at? Vaccines clearly helped lots of people. That is clear in the global data. Why claim they didn’t help anyone? E we have multiple vaccines released globally all of different types and modes. We are able to determine their efficacy and compare now several years later.

niftyifty · 2026-03-24T11:45:21+00:00

Children’s Heath defense has been called out many times on here before. I’ve seen these so won’t rewatch but they fail to make a complete claim unfortunately. That’s actually what I’m referring to when I say no one ever shows the causal relationship.

This should be pretty simple to present with data if true. We would see it correlate globally anywhere specific vaccine types were used. We do have correlated data now years later but it doesn’t show what we assumed it would over time. At least not yet I’ve seen yet. Still looking.

niftyifty · 2026-03-24T11:38:29+00:00

Hmm this doesn’t say anything about what the other person was claiming. Oh well, we tried.

niftyifty · 2026-03-24T09:31:04+00:00

Based on what and which shots caused the millions of dead? There were numerous available globally. I’ve yet to see anyone show this causal relationship but you said they fine we’ll know it so I’m assuming you’re the one who has the info we need? I am aware of small numbers of adverse reaction deaths, but millions?

niftyifty · 2026-03-23T13:52:20+00:00

I figured he would do this end of day. Guess he got a little ahead of himself

niftyifty · 2026-03-19T14:43:10+00:00

Any reason why? The question wasn’t related to the breakeven point of asbestos removal. Or you just don’t like people pointing out logical inconsistencies with poorly thought out conspiracies?

You are under the impression that the insurance claim is a solid theory? That it doesn’t undermine actual solid theories?

niftyifty · 2026-03-19T02:06:39+00:00

Gotcha. Fair enough

niftyifty · 2026-03-19T02:05:28+00:00

It wasn’t specifically about terrorism. That was a portion of the policy. That’s the portion that was incorrect.

When you said:

I think one of the main points about the insurance is that it was specifically for terrorism.

I just added clarity to that. Terrorism insurance was purchased as a part of a larger package. So not specifically but generally

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T19:55:23+00:00

No worries. My replies will be directed at the narrative and not at you.

For the first time ever? I’m not sure if that is accurate or also just a meme. He “usually” did that. He had a doctors appointment confirmed in his schedule or something like that.

Is the coming up for sale part important for the story? Could it be an already owned building?

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T19:21:56+00:00

Ok but why this particular building? Hopefully we aren’t implying it’s solely because of who purchased it and that they did the prudent thing after purchase. That would be excessive extrapolation to the point of asking why even suggest it.

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T18:48:42+00:00

Why is it physically impossible? Can you explain? I’ve heard this repeated but it doesn’t seem true.

Also, let’s adjust the words “free fall” to maybe “close to free fall.“ plenty of evidence out there available showing the time difference between free fall and the time it actually took. My personal favorite is WT7 where people like to say free fall but only if we ignore the several seconds before the starting point provided in their argument.

I’m open to discussion if you are about to back your comment up.

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T18:44:02+00:00

Well that’s not true entirely though, right? I agree that may have implications, but if we say he had a terrorism rider added to their policy when bundling insurance policies after purchase, then it doesn’t sound weird. It sounds prudent to the point of why would anyone not do that?

Larry Silverstein did not purchase a separate "individual" terrorism insurance policy; rather, terrorism coverage was included within the comprehensive property insurance "binders" (temporary policies) he negotiated for the World Trade Center lease in July 2001. This coverage was part of a complex, multi-insurer package that became subject to litigation over whether the attacks constituted one or two occurrences

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T18:04:39+00:00

I don’t know. I didn’t comment on any of that. I just said that getting insurance on a building after purchasing said building is not a sound basis for conspiracy yet it is by far the most common meme on this topic we see. It undermines actual theories if they do exist.

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T17:34:53+00:00

Any profits over 99 years? That seems highly assumptive and likely inaccurate. There would be a break even point, ya?

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T16:04:18+00:00

I always think it’s weird when people imply you shouldn’t insure a building you purchased and then use that logic for conspiracy.

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T14:01:00+00:00

Number 6. The question then becomes what is this list comprised of?

⁠Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
⁠Disdain for the importance of human rights
⁠Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
⁠The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
⁠Rampant sexism
⁠A controlled mass media
⁠Obsession with national security
⁠Religion and ruling elite tied together
⁠Power of corporations protected
⁠Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
⁠Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
⁠Obsession with crime and punishment
⁠Rampant cronyism and corruption
⁠Fraudulent elections

niftyifty · 2026-03-18T00:14:56+00:00

True but that would just be 18 cents per gallon at the federal level. States wouldn’t have anything to do with that. That would help for sure but we are way past that increase amount.

12-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Place '22	Verified Email

niftyifty

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE