We can be better. This is a small cohort choosing not to.

Any port in a storm.

Trump, doing more to fight climate change than anyone ever thought possible.

Because most people are poor, poorly educated and have no concept of scale.

For 90% of humans on earth, it is so far above experience, it is practically a mansion. For another 5% the "prestige" is sufficient to bridge the credibility gap. The remainder don't play GTA V or talk shit on Lemmy.

Regrets there is blowback. When you are constantly on the wrong side of history, maybe the hollow apologies aren't enough and institutional change is required.

Few are pleased with the state of policing. Corruption, egregious breeches of ostensible policing standards leave few "proud" of our police. This is what they will admit., but consider the source, and trustworthiness.

It's not like the cops had a good reputation.

ACAB. My ability to actually list the long line of egregious abuses pales compared to the monumentality of the task. It doesn't have to be this way.

Agreement in principle - Alberta does whatever it wants, Canada looks the other way.

Struggling recruitment?

What unpatriotic fool doesn't want to die in a pointless war on behalf of the pedo-in-chief who calls those who do "suckers and losers"?

Friends don't let friends share the NYPost.

There is more to it I think. In a masters level course I took, our Instructor was a nearly retired Ph.D in Taxation. He had spent a lifetime in the halls of corporate power as an expert, conducting research and giving policy advice to corporations, governments and institutions.

Among the friendly banter during breaks, some interesting conversations came up about ethics in business. He interjected and offered an explicit personal opinion. He was very clear he was speaking as a person eating his lunch, not as our instructor and in no way does what he was about to say reflect the course material in any way:

If you want to understand how corporations' executives and more importantly, how Boards of Directors, and a lot of high level civil servants and political actors really measure performance under these ethical scenarios, read Machiavelli's "The Prince". It explains everything.

I read it the next day. Then I went on to read Xenophon's "The Education of Cyrus" because Machiavelli referred to it in the book.

Edit: Having read a few more of OPs responses, I think OPs subject is just saying they agree with/admire Machiavelli's The Prince, and to the point of my story, so do a LOT of powerful people. You know, the types who tend to score high on the DSM's dark triad and run global corporations.

Ah. So they read The Prince, and they admire the self-centered, amoral pursuit of political power.

We call those people conservative or fascist, depending on the degree of ideological rigour and if any off flavours are present.

To answer your question, I consider the dish ruined. It should be discarded and you should try anew from scratch.

They are flat out lying. Machiavellians tend to be manipulative and giving this knowledge away defeats the goals and purpose of machiavellianism.

Like beating someone to death for not believing you're a pacifist.

Edit: See my other posts for a better take on what's going on here.

The pedo president brokers a "peace deal" for Ukraine by asking it to capitulate completely - giving half to Russia and half to US corporate interests. In exchange for these concessions, they will both kill your people through normal authoritarian domestic policies and not war.