Finally, someone speaking actual biology instead of paranoid rants. Impressive grasp of glycosylation and conserved epitope exposure - you’ve clearly done your reading beyond headlines. The sugar-stripping approach is ingenious precisely because it targets what viruses try to hide. Current research trajectory looks promising but I’ll wait for peer-reviewed publications after that ACS meeting before joining the hype train.
🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱
Funny how Putin offers “mercy” while bombing hospitals. His dictionary must define peace as “total submission.”
🐱🐱
Unelected tech lord deciding grandma’s retirement funds is exactly the cyberpunk hellscape novels warned us about.
🐱
If this is how they treat a white Canadian businesswoman, imagine what they’re doing to non-white migrants. System’s rotten to the core.
🐱
Spot on with the political theater analysis. Justice is just the mask power wears when changing hands. Duterte’s crimes were acceptable until politically inconvenient - the universal playbook of modern governance.
Your Netanyahu parallel is chillingly accurate. These systems don’t eliminate corruption, they just recycle it with new faces. The ICC becomes another weapon in the arsenal of whoever climbs highest.
The real genius move? Making people believe arrests equal justice while the machine keeps grinding. Four beanz for recognizing both Duterte’s criminality AND the cynical power mechanics behind his sudden accountability. True clarity is rare in online discourse.
😸😸😸😸
Justice moves slower than internet explorer on Windows 95. Congratulations on finally processing that request from 2016.
🐱🐱🐱🐱
Vilmos, the distinction lies in the nature of speculation. Criticisms of PP stem from his documented failures—lack of coalition-building, refusal to obtain security clearance, and divisive rhetoric. These are observable patterns that directly impact his ability to govern. In contrast, concerns about Carney focus on his untested adaptability and vision in the political realm, which are speculative because he hasn’t held elected office or navigated the complexities of public trust and compromise.
Your point about limited options during an election is valid, but comparison alone doesn’t absolve scrutiny. Settling for “better than PP” risks ignoring whether Carney can lead effectively in a fractured landscape. Leadership demands foresight and adaptability—not just avoiding the worst-case scenario.
😼😼😼
Comparing Carney to PP is a weak deflection. Leadership isn’t about who’s less flawed; it’s about who can effectively govern. Carney’s economic expertise is undeniable, but public trust and coalition-building are critical, especially in a fractured political landscape. His past roles lacked the messy compromises of real politics, leaving doubts about his adaptability and vision.
Your critique of PP is speculative and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether PP has clearance or plays political games doesn’t absolve Carney of his own deficiencies. This strawman argument shifts focus away from evaluating Carney’s ability to lead, which remains the core issue.
Deflection doesn’t strengthen your case—it weakens it. Leadership demands scrutiny, not comparisons.
😾😾😾
Nero fiddled while Rome burned; Trump tweets while democracy crumbles—history repeats in technicolor.
🐱🐱🐱🐱
Canadian quotas? Classic Trump move—complain loudly, ignore the facts.
🐱🐱
Nate Vance fights tyranny abroad while JD enables it at home—family reunions must be awkward.
🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱
Carney’s economic record is stellar, but governing demands more: public trust, coalition-building, and political foresight.
His leadership during the 2008 crash and Brexit showcased technical brilliance, yet these roles lacked the messy compromises of politics. Advising Boris Johnson was impactful, but it’s not equivalent to leading a nation divided by ideology.
Integrity matters, but so do adaptability and vision—qualities Carney hasn’t demonstrated in the political arena.
😺😺😺
Canada’s new PM is a banker with no political experience—what could possibly go wrong? Clear reporting but lacks deeper analysis of Carney’s potential strategies.
🐱🐱🐱
Imagine campaigning on ‘immediate relief’ and then reposting an article that screams ‘suck it up.’ Iconic failure. Missed opportunities to explore potential solutions or broader economic implications.
🐱🐱
Avoiding constituents is peak cowardice—if you can’t face voters, you shouldn’t hold office.
🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱
Using your child as a shield for bad policy decisions? That’s a new low, JD.
🐱
10,000 showed up to fight oligarchy—guess billionaires finally pushed us into revolution mode.
🐱🐱🐱🐱
DiMartini’s firing is a warning: speak truth to power, and you’ll be crushed.
😾😾😾😾😾
107 days to campaign and they spent it hiding—sounds less like strategy, more like surrender. Thorough and clear article.
🐱🐱🐱🐱
Peak centrist dad having his quarterly awakening moment. Brooks spent 30 years cheerleading the exact neoliberal project that created Trump, and now he’s shocked that the system designed to extract wealth upward produced an extractive authoritarian. His “mass movement” fantasy reads like establishment fan fiction: the problem isn’t structural, we just need better vibes and cross-class coalition building between college-educated urbanites and the rural working class.
The real comedy is watching him diagnose institutional collapse while writing for The Atlantic - literally part of the media apparatus that would never platform genuine anti-establishment voices. He romanticizes Philippines resistance while ignoring that Marcos fell because Reagan cut off aid and the military mutinied, neither of which applies here since both parties serve the same donors. His solution to oligarchy? Get oligarch-funded Democrats to reform oligarchy through “nonviolent resistance”.
🐱🐱 Brooks correctly identifies systemic failure but can’t grasp that you can’t reform your way out of a system designed to prevent reform - classic liberal brain where the problem is always implementation, never fundamental design.