8
pearlrevolver 8 points ago +8 / -0

About gray checkmarks from X's Help Center:

The grey checkmark indicates that an account represents a government/multilateral organization or a government/multilateral official. Eligibility criteria to receive a complimentary grey checkmark are listed below. Additional government and multilateral accounts can receive grey checkmarks through Verified Organizations.

Eligible government organizations at the national level may include: Main executive office accounts, agency accounts overseeing specific areas of policy, main embassy and consulate accounts, and parliamentary or equivalent institutional and committee accounts. Eligible government organizations at the state and local level include: Main executive office accounts and main agency accounts overseeing crisis response, public safety, law enforcement, and regulatory issues.

Eligible government individuals may include: Heads of state (presidents, monarchs and prime ministers), deputy heads of state (vice presidents, deputy prime ministers), national-level cabinet members or equivalent, the main official spokesperson for the executive branch or equivalent, and individual members of all chambers of the supranational or national congress, parliament, or equivalent.

Eligible multilateral organizations may include: the main headquarters-level, regional-level, and country-level institutional accounts. Eligible multilateral individuals include: The head and deputy-head or equivalent of the multilateral organization.

US only: Accounts of current US state governors and senior military leaders are also eligible.


I wonder why it changed today? Only Trump's changed, not Elon's, Vivek's, or RFK Jr.'s as they do not hold any position in government yet. But technically, neither does Trump. This seems notable.

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know fren, I felt the same, but what these kids suffered is far worse than how we feel. We have to be strong for them. We have to spread these atrocities far and wide and then we can demand justice.

2
pearlrevolver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here's a video of what they do for an abortion in 2nd trimester. https://www.abortionprocedures.com/

12
pearlrevolver 12 points ago +12 / -0

No, they didn't have to. These children had no rights whatsoever. If parents/adoptive parents refused treatment, the Administration for Children's Services would take the child away and put them in an orphanage and force the drugs directly into their stomach via tube. They have absolute power in NYC to take any child away for any reason, including refusing experimental treatments.

4
pearlrevolver 4 points ago +4 / -0

If you think what he did to puppies is bad, you should read what he did to orphans with AIDS.

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you believe the consumer should be allowed to buy drugs like meth and crack? If no, why not? Poison is poison. One just kills you faster than the other. At least with the hard drugs, one can easily go an entire lifetime without ever encountering them if one wishes. With the poison additives, you have to be hyperaware of everything you consume. If a child does not have a parent constantly reading ingredient labels and monitoring their food, they are going to consume these poisons. This generation of children is the unhealthiest ever to exist. Cancer, obesity, ADD, autism, etc. They banned DDT when they found out it was killing the eagle population. Eagles had no choice in avoiding DDT because it was in their food source (fish). Children are not given a choice in what they eat, they are entirely dependent on their parents. Poisons in our food must be banned to protect those who do not have informed consent.

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about banning the ingredients that don't derive from the "food infrastructure", like the petroleum byproducts: yellow/red dyes, synthetic oils, preservatives, paraffin wax, olestra.

They put this stuff in our food because it costs more for companies to properly dispose of these byproducts.

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

How is regular butter bad? I've read grass fed butter has higher nutrient and fatty acid content, but that doesn't make regular butter inherently bad. There was a new study released in March of this year that says eating less saturated fat doesn't lower a person's risk for heart disease.

Several cultures have been eating butter for thousands of years. Farmers started giving cows grains in the 1800's. If grain fed butter/milk was the problem, people would have been having cardiovascular issues back then, but it's become a more recent epidemic.

2
pearlrevolver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why must femininity be "toxic" at all? The point OP is trying to make is femininity and masculinity are necessary for a balanced upbringing and on a larger scale, a balanced society. We need more women to celebrate femininity and traditional female roles instead of trying to replace men.

6
pearlrevolver 6 points ago +6 / -0

Whether you agree with him or not, It's his god given right to say what he wants. If you don't like that, you can't claim to be pro first amendment.

8
pearlrevolver 8 points ago +8 / -0

You either allow everyone to have the right to public discourse or you don't live in a free society. Period.

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

On the Rogan podcast, Elon said he wants to give generous severances to the gov workers he cuts, like 1-2 year severances. Not that I'm for that, but that would probably make a lot of people happy as they rejoin the private sector workforce.

2
pearlrevolver 2 points ago +2 / -0

They also get pregnant on purpose so they can leave the deployment.

This is so true. They get 3 months of paid leave whenever they pop out a child. I knew a woman who had a baby each year so she could keep getting all these benefits on the tax payer's dime without ever having to deploy.

3
pearlrevolver 3 points ago +3 / -0

A lot of people are responding that they want Rand Paul to be Senate Majority Leader. I want to remind everyone that Rand Paul did vote against emergency border funding during Trump's first term. I agree with him on several issues, but I would define him as a libertarian, not a MAGA conservative. Looking at Rick Scott's policies, for the most part it seems to be in lockstep with Trump's MAGA agenda. Right now I think we need the most die hard MAGA people at the helm to unburden us by what has been enacted over the last several decades of RINO/leftist agenda.

4
pearlrevolver 4 points ago +4 / -0

How many meds was this individual on to commit familicide? Sick.

2
pearlrevolver 2 points ago +2 / -0

It'd be a demotion to what they're already doing.

10
pearlrevolver 10 points ago +10 / -0

If I were RFK Jr I would:

  1. Ban fluoridated water
  2. Ban artificial dyes
  3. Eliminate all childhood scheduled vaccines
  4. Ban glyphosate
  5. Decriminalize raw milk producers
  6. Ban plastic packaging of food and beverage items
37
pearlrevolver 37 points ago +37 / -0

Time to liberate the rest of these states then. Day 1 Trump needs to enact a Federal Voter ID!

19
pearlrevolver 19 points ago +19 / -0

Yes! This is the best birthday I've ever had. Love you all!

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

It depends upon the area. When I was growing up in southern California, they started adding fluoride in the early 2000s. Luckily we lived out in the country and had a well, so we avoided that poison altogether.

25
pearlrevolver 25 points ago +25 / -0

I can't wait to live through the next American golden age! No more poison water or foods, no more poison vaccines. Ending income taxes and ending the financing of China. Possibly a reduction of the deficit? The end of the FED and the fiat dollar. I can only imagine what people will be able to achieve again once we are healthy and no longer enslaved to this Ponzi scheme system!

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›