Sheila Lee

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@greenery897 @NathanGWoo That remains to be seen. He's not done yet.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@saniyafatma1278 We do. You should respect the office and show respect to whomever holds the office.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@abmarkman Honestly, all those Elon Musk accounts are reflecting badly on him. I don't know if they're real or imposters, but it doesn't make him look too stable.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@abmarkman It depends on how one defines success.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

We will never forget how
some private citizens, the news media and Democrats in Congress have disrespected the office of the Presidency since Donald Trump has been President. They won't be forgotten for their behavior and disrespect.
​Over the past decade, American politics has witnessed a troubling shift in decorum, particularly regarding the respect shown to the Office of the Presidency during the Trump administration. For millions of citizens, the intense opposition from congressional leadership was noted to be a sub-standard policy debate and a direct dismissal of the voters who elected the President.

​True leadership requires a commitment to represent the entire population with dignity. When political rhetoric becomes base personal opinions rather than addressing policy, it erodes public trust and presents the speaker incompetent, uneducated, or ignorant, none of whom we should rely upon for our nation's well-being. Moving forward, it is up to the electorate to use the power of the ballot box to select leaders who prioritize constructive governance over divisive partisanship.

​The longevity of our republic depends entirely on the quality of our lawmakers and the stability of our institutions. If we want to ensure the next 250 years of American progress and prosperity, we must demand a higher standard from those we elect to represent us. Restoring integrity and voter accountability in Congress is a priority that can only be addressed at the ballot box.

Unfortunately, the unprecedented level of hostility directed toward the office of the presidency during Donald Trump’s time in office has set a damaging precedent for all elected officials. To many Americans, the rhetoric and actions coming from Congress crossed the line from political disagreement into a rejection of the millions of voters who participated in the democratic process.

​Public service is a privilege, and members of Congress must be held to a standard that reflects the weight of their office. When lawmakers lose sight of their duty to unify and protect the nation, the voters must serve as the ultimate check and balance.

Preserving the American experiment for future generations requires us to replace partisan hostility with principled leadership. It is vital that the electorate votes for representatives who are dedicated to upholding our laws, respecting the voter, and securing the long-term future of the United States.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@_VoiceofAmerica Elon doesn't have time to be a public servant with all he's doing now. His focus is on Mars, not Earth.😂 I can't see him giving all that up.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@LibertyNut1 No

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

Some might be under the illusion that they will never be caught and prosecuted for scamming unsuspecting individuals on the internet.

Some might even joke and feel arrogant about their expertise in deception, but their criminally selfish "games to gain" will cause
a massive, systemic shift in how the digital world operates. Law enforcement priority is historically driven by economic threats, and as the stakes get higher, the methods used to fight cyber-fraud most likely will be turning into an all-out digital dragnet.

​While consumer fraud—like a grandparent losing their retirement savings to a tech-support scam—might be treated by local police as a tragic but low-priority property crime. Local departments simply lacked the jurisdiction, budget, or technical training to chase a scammer operating out of a completely different continent.

​However, the rise of high portfolios is changing the scenario completely. When sophisticated phishing rings, ransomware groups, and corporate identity thieves begin siphoning hundreds of millions from hedge funds, decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, and critical infrastructure, cybercrime shifts from a consumer nuisance to a national security threat.

​ Law enforcement resources often follow systemic economic risk. When the wealth of major institutions and politically influential players is threatened, governments will be forced to fund state-level, aggressive internet policing.

​The comparison to how child exploitation material (CSAM) is tracked is highly accurate regarding the intensity and global coordination required, though the technical tools will probably be a bit different.

​Global Task Forces will band together in catching worst-of-the-worst internet criminals because of international treaties and specialized units (like Interpol's cybercrime divisions). We are now seeing the exact same infrastructure built for financial crimes—such as the massive international takeowns of ransomware networks and illicit crypto mixers.

​AI will be the major detective and informer. Just as law enforcement uses automated data-matching to flag illicit imagery, cyber-investigators now use AI pattern recognition and blockchain analytics to track stolen funds. Because digital transactions leave a permanent ledger or a data trail through server logs, scammers are finding it incredibly difficult to "wash" their gains without tripping automated global tripwires.

​Research tells us that scammers used to operate safely out of countries that turned a blind eye to cybercrime. But as major economic superpowers feel the sting of high-portfolio thefts, they are using diplomatic and economic pressure to force those nations to extradite or prosecute local cyber-cartels aka thieves through scamming. There is always a catch and this one surfaces as a privacy dilemma.

​While aggressive internet policing is becoming necessary to protect people's wealth, it introduces a major friction point that society might
wrestle with.
​To catch a scammer, intelligence agencies and governments will demand deeper "watch tactics " into online traffic. This means no more total online anonymity. The push for safety translates into stricter digital ID requirements, mandatory "Know Your Customer" (KYC) laws for almost all digital interactions, and increased state surveillance over financial transactions.

​The future of the internet will likely be a constant tug-of-war between people demanding absolute security for their money and those defending the right to personal privacy, both of which are of great priorities, but may be impossible to accomplish for both.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@AntiLeftMemes Wrong.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

Before we babble criticism or distort facts about the "freeloaders" of society who rely on help from the government (at times of scarcity) in the form of SNAP or housing benefits, we need to be informed.
What some may not remember is that the Real Estate Lobby turned Section 8 into a "private real estate investor windfall" with the poor taking 100% of stigma associated with government "housing assistance."
​While the Section 8 program is known as a federal housing safety net for low-income families, it origininated from an aggressive, decades-long lobbying campaign by the real estate industry to insure private profits stay intact. By dismantling government-built public housing, the real estate lobby successfully redirected billions of federal dollars directly into the pockets of private landlords and landowners. The real Estate industry shifted public policy into a private revenue driver by
eliminating government competition. Throughout the mid-20th century, organizations like the National Association of Real Estate Boards fought government-constructed public housing, labeling it "socialized housing." By legally restricting where and how much public housing could be built, they ensured the government would never compete with private market rentals,
guaranteeing revenue for private landlords. Realizing they couldn’t stop federal housing aid entirely, realtors lobbied for housing vouchers. This shifted the system from public asset building to private market subsidies. For landlords, this meant steady, reliable, government-backed checks that covered market-rate rents with virtually zero risk of tenant default. A goal was to
​subsidize private developers and landowners by passing the passage of the 1974 Act that introduced "Project-Based" Section 8. Under this program, the government signed lucrative 20-to-40-year contracts with private developers to build or renovate properties deemed as potential "lower income housing." Landowners received guaranteed government mortgages and massive tax shelters, transforming low-income housing into a low-risk cash cow.

​Section 8 was highly engineered by the real estate industry. By lobbying for demand vouchers over supply public construction, realtors ensured that low-income housing aid would ultimately serve as a permanent subsidy for private real estate wealth. As Americans, we ALL have received benefits in one form or another and government assistance is assistance regardless of it's classification or how one defines their social status.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

Things are not always as they are designed to appear. Consider the real beneficiaries of public assistance such as SNAP "benefits" and subsidized housing "benefits."

Public assistance in the U.S. frequently functions as an indirect subsidy for private wealth.

​By using subsidized housing—specifically the Housing Choice Voucher program, commonly known as Section 8—as anchor, we identify a classic case of stigma and market distortion.
The landlord pocketing profit on a "jacked-up value" is structurally accurate in many real estate markets.

​The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets Fair Market Rents (FMR) based on broad metropolitan areas. However, within any city, rental values vary drastically by neighborhood.
In a distressed or low-income ZIP code, the true open-market rent for a substandard one or two-bedroom apartment might naturally drop to $500 due to low demand. But if the regional HUD FMR is set at $1,200, landlords can market to voucher holders and collect that higher amount.

Because the government directly deposits its portion (frequently 70% or more of the total rent), the landlord faces virtually zero default risk on the bulk of the payment.

Because the property generates a high, guaranteed yield funded by taxpayers, its underlying valuation is artificially inflated. The wealthy property owner can then borrow more capital against that inflated asset or sell it to institutional investors at a massive premium.

​There is a profound sociological double standard embedded regarding who is labeled "dependent" on the state:

​The Tenant: Bears 100% of the social shame. They face systemic discrimination from property managers, rigorous bureaucratic policing, and are often politically weaponized as a "drain on tax dollars."

​The Landlord: Is viewed cleanly as a savvy entrepreneur, property investor, or "job creator"—completely insulated from public scrutiny, despite the fact that their entire business model relies on a direct pipeline of public funds paid directly by the working poor, middle class, and other taxpayers.

​This creates a psychological smokescreen. By directing public resentment downward toward the vulnerable individual holding the voucher, the system obscures the upward transfer of wealth. The tenant acts as a structural pass-through entity: the money is legally earmarked for their relief, but it is immediately converted into private capital gains for the property owner.
Is there another ulterior motive for assisting "the poor?"
​To elaborate on the idea of an "ulterior motive," we can look at the historical and structural architecture of American welfare. These programs are rarely designed to build long-term equity or wealth for the poor; they are designed to stabilize private industries.

​If millions of low-income renters default on rent simultaneously, landlords default on their commercial mortgages, causing a cascading crisis for regional banks. By subsidizing the rent, the government isn't just keeping a family housed—it is guaranteeing the baseline revenue of the real estate market and absorbing the financial risk for property owners.

​This same pattern reproduces itself across almost every public safety net sector:

​SNAP (Food Stamps): Functions as a multi-billion dollar guaranteed revenue stream for mega-retailers like Walmart and corporate agribusinesses.

​Medicaid: Funnels immense public wealth directly into the balance sheets of private, for-profit healthcare monopolies and pharmaceutical companies.

​Give thought to the paradox of modern public assistance: it uses the language of "humanitarian aid" to build a reliable financial floor for private capital. When the "self-reliant" capitalist decides to cut funds to the "poor," ironically he will be dismantling his own economic safety net.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@WHLeavitt @elonmusk Big yes

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@Kinza1278 None of those.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@LibertyNut1 Absolutely not. Being married to a former President does not qualify her to be President. Obama ran Joe Biden's administration, I think.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@WorkElizab The loads of books we had to carry around and we weren't allowed to use calculators for Math. When writing essays, we used Dictionaries (books) and thoughts and answers came directly from our minds. We were required to use pencils with erasers and wrote on lined paper.

[Sheila Lee @Sheilahlee]

@AmericaFirsa In the U.S., I think they're up to mischief. Maybe they're going to try to rob a bank. That attire is not part of our culture.