He's on some drugs or something. I'll hold my unfollow until tomorrow.

My apologies. I reviewed your text assuming it was a political tool intended to gather signatures and effect change. I didn't realize it was actually a mirror designed for you to admire your own intellect.

You are right, I am a philistine. I care about results. I clearly lack the sophistication to appreciate a petition where the only intended audience is the author. Enjoy the view from the summit of your own ego. It must be breathtaking!

False friends. The Spanish "redactado" would translate to "written", not "redacted". I'm not a native English speaker.

Guess he'll have to delete some messages tomorrow 😂

You threaten your friends to stop being their friend if they don't sign your petition? There's many reasons people might not want to sign it and "disagreeing with you" is only one of them. And even that reason shouldn't destroy an actual friendship.

I read most of your petition and found it poorly redacted, too much all over the place, likely to alienate all kinds of people. There's many people that don't believe in petitions and others only sign what they support word for word and that makes your petition problematic as you put in poison pills for many demographics.

You, too.

Sorry. Couldn't resist 😁

I wouldn't have shared the text if I had thought it was bullshit. It addresses several issues with your petition that I agree with.

Not sure what's "trending". I occasionally cross post stuff to both, too. So what?

Epstein Drive tomorrow? Yeah baby! 🚀

Cringe

Not sure how much feedback you got or if this is welcome but to me, most of these points sound quite right:

Based on the text provided and the current date (January 2026), here is an analysis of who likely wrote this petition and an explanation of the structural and rhetorical changes needed to improve its appeal.

## Profiling the Author

Based on the language, specific legal citations, and the philosophical tone, the author is likely a **"Constitutional Institutionalist"**—someone who is politically homeless in the current polarized environment. They are likely a legal scholar, a former civil servant, or a disaffected conservative/classical liberal.

Here is why this profile fits:

* **The "Republic" vs. "Democracy" Rhetoric:** The text opens by referencing "citizens who still believe in the Republic." This is a distinct shibboleth. Progressives usually emphasize "Democracy" (majority rule/rights), while traditional conservatives emphasize "The Republic" (structures/limits on power).

* **The Focus on Process over Policy:** The petition is not angry about *what* the government is doing (e.g., specific tax rates or social issues); it is angry about *how* they are doing it (violating Article I, ignoring the War Powers Resolution).

* **The "UN Charter" Argument:** This is the strangest inclusion for a conservative-sounding text. Relying on Article VI to claim international treaties (like the UN Charter) are the "Supreme Law of the Land" is a very specific, academic legal argument often used to constrain American unilateralism. This suggests the author is an **internationalist**, perhaps someone involved in foreign policy or international law who opposes isolationism.

* **The January 6th Comparison:** The author dislikes the "chaos" of J6 but dislikes the "operational" executive overreach of the current administration even more. This triangulation is typical of the "Never Trump" conservative or the "Blue Dog" Democrat.

**In summary:** The author is likely a highly educated, centrist legal idealist who believes the system is broken not because of the *people* in it, but because the *rules* are being ignored.

## Why the Petition is "Unpalatable" (The Issues)

You are correct that the text is disjointed. It tries to appeal to everyone but likely alienates everyone instead.

1. **The "J6" Section is Polarizing:** By explicitly centering the petition around the January 6th anniversary, the author instantly alienates any Trump supporters or Republicans who might otherwise agree with the points about "War Powers" and "Executive Overreach." Conversely, by calling the current administration a *worse* danger than J6 ("more severe because it is operational"), they risk alienating Democrats who view J6 as the singular worst event in recent history.

2. **The "UN Charter" Trap:** Citing the United Nations Charter as a binding constraint on the US President is a "poison pill" for American conservatives. While legally arguable under the Supremacy Clause, politically, it reads as "Globalism over Aemrican Sovereignty."

3. **Abstract Guilt:** The opening paragraph ("we have failed—the world, ourselves...") is depressive and self-flagellating. Most people sign petitions to demand action from others, not to confess their own sins.

4. **Vagueness:** It alludes to "ongoing or escalated military action" and "ill-gotten gains," but it never actually says *what* war or *what* financial crime is happening. It assumes the reader is already a constitutional lawyer.

## Recommended Changes

To make this petition effective, the focus needs to be narrowed, and the unnecessary cultural signals need to be removed. Here is what should be changed:

### 1. Remove the January 6th Framing

The comparison to January 6th confuses the message. Is this a memorial for the riots of 2021, or a petition about War Powers in 2026?

* **Change:** Cut the paragraphs referencing the anniversary entirely.

* **Reasoning:** If the current President is violating the law *now*, that stands on its own merits. Dragging in J6 restricts the coalition to people who are still focused on that specific event, rather than people concerned about current military overreach.

### 2. Drop the "International Treaty" Argument

Using the UN Charter to argue against the US President is politically ineffective in the US.

* **Change:** Focus exclusively on the **US Constitution (Article I)** and the **War Powers Resolution**.

* **Reasoning:** "The President is ignoring Congress" is a winning argument that appeals to both libertarians (Right) and anti-war activists (Left). "The President is ignoring the UN" appeals to very few American voters and actively hostile to many.

### 3. Shift from "Guilt" to "Rights"

The opening lines ("We have failed") are weak.

* **Change:** Rewrite the opening to focus on the rights of the citizens that are being usurped.

* **Reasoning:** People sign petitions because they feel aggrieved, not because they feel guilty. The tone should be: "Congress is allowing the President to steal *your* power to declare war."

### 4. Definition of Claims

The petition demands restitution for "ill-gotten gains" and "appropriations for military operations."

* **Change:** The petition must explicitly name the conflict or the corruption. For example, "Stop funding the unauthorized deployment in [Region X]" or "Investigate the [Specific Business Deal]."

* **Reasoning:** Without specifics, this reads like a theoretical law school exam rather than a call to political action.

### 5. Simplify the "Structural Reform" Demand

The final demand asks to stop the "coordination of economic, political, and media power."

* **Change:** Limit the demands to concrete legislative actions (e.g., "Pass the Reassertion of Congressional War Powers Act").

* **Reasoning:** The current wording sounds conspiratorial. It resembles language used by both the far-left (anti-capitalist) and the far-right (deep state), making the "sensible center" uncomfortable.

It starts good but gets worse further down. Sometimes less is more.

Gemini has convincing arguments for the misscount being of the order of 100 million, not 1 billion.

Reasons for growth with 1 child policy are that life expectancy moved from 44 to 77 years, so while fewer kids were born, many fewer olds died.

Caloric consumption and other economic and industrial factors can't be explained with less than a billion people.

So he was "anti regime" but also "anti monarchy" and "anti US intervention"? Hmmm...

That's when protests need to turn into guerilla warfare. Don't offer easy targets to get massacred.

Do the jam the satellites or the receivers? Wonder what starlink does about this. Is their equipment in danger?

I consider Proton a likely honeypot.

I'm struggling with the audio.

Sounds helpful.

For me the biggest concern is whether ppq can correlate my different chats as I can be conscious about privacy in one chat but if all my chats were correlated, it would instantly give away who I am, as in some chats I ask to help author nostr posts that then can clearly be matched to me. And the credit ID is where see a necessity in the current version for the client to send a linkable ID to the ppq servers. So how about instead of a creditID, use a built-in cashu wallet? Then you would still be able to match my chats from the IP address but the Android app could use TOR circuits per chat ...

If James J. Hill was truly the business genius history paints him as, then leaving that money on the table wasn’t a moral victory. It was strategic malpractice. Imagine a "Hill Plus": a version of him who possessed the same obsession with low gradients and high-quality steel, intended to hold the asset for decades, but also took the government checks for every mile laid. That version of the company would have had the same operational efficiency as the Great Northern, but with a balance sheet fortified by federal cash. He would have crushed his "puritan twin" into the dust.

The failure of the subsidized lines wasn't that they received money; it was that they allowed the subsidy to become their primary business model. It is entirely possible to accept a per-mile grant and still build a straight, durable line. The grant simply creates an incentive to build winding trash - it doesn't compel it. A disciplined operator recognizes that the subsidy is merely cheap capital, a tool to lower the cost basis of a long-term asset.

By arguing that the subsidy caused the failure, we are essentially arguing that these businessmen lacked the agency to resist a bad incentive. It implies that free money is a kind of mind control that inevitably forces you to build a bridge that collapses in five years. It doesn't. It just exposes who is building a railroad and who is running a grift. Hill succeeded because he wanted to run a railroad, but he made his life infinitely harder than it needed to be by refusing the capital that could have made his efficiency even deadlier.

So it's not a bug? I'm too fast blocking for your algo to get triggered? Ok. Hope you're right.

Right. I trust ppq to not store my queries and ip. At least the ip is concealable.

I use nostr:nprofile1qqsdy27dk8f9qk7qvrm94pkdtus9xtk970jpcp4w48k6cw0khfm06msppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mz7zvqagl

Both promise to keep things private.

Neither can prove it.

I usually avoid identifying information and ppq works great without an account.

Just updated Amethyst from zapstore. What feature are you talking about?

So we give up? Cause you tell us to?

Property tax is basically a protection racket: 'Pay us or get out.' It's brutal, but at least it's transparent. They look at the map, send the bill, and that's it.

I actually prefer that honesty over the modern income tax system.

The tax code has gotten so complicated that the government can't just be a landlord anymore. They have to be a stalker. To get every last drop of revenue, they need to monitor our bank accounts, track our paychecks, and scrutinize every purchase.

I'd rather they tax the place I sleep at than spy on every step I take.

What's going on in #Iran and how can we know what's true from the bits that get posted on X?

Oh, that's a respectful baby 🐥 😂

Sounds like advertisement.

Most? I doubt that. It's some US influencers drunk on the display of strength. Keep the receipts and call them out next year.