Mark Ruffalo, who made millions acting in mostly bad movies thanks to capitalism, wants us to move away from capitalism. He said ,”We have enough,” meaning money and material things, and he should have changed that to “I have enough.” I love the part where he says we have to imagine a new economy, and […] The post Mark Ruffalo Dreams of a New America Without Capitalism appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

A Taylor Swift fan who accused the singer of selling a necklace with allegedly blatant Nazi symbolism has gone viral with her claims. Also, the item has disappeared from Swift’s merchandise site, though it’s unclear if this was due to the accusations or because it sold out. Reps for Swift did not immediately return a request for comment on the controversy. User sampire1513, whose profile describes her as “the friend that’s too woke” and “happily gay married,” posted a video detailing all the symbolism she saw on the necklace being sold on Swift’s merchandise website. The jewelry piece was meant to go along with the song “Opalite” from the singer’s newest “The Life of a Showgirl” album. The video has gone viral on multiple social media platforms, earning 5.4 million views on TikTok and a ton of supportive comments. The TikTok creator opened by mentioning the reception to the song “Opalite,” which she said has “racial undertones.” “I am in the business of  listening to black women. I think they would know what a microaggression sounds like against them way better than I ever could,” sampire1513 began. She said after seeing the necklace, she has decided that the song “Opalite” is “completely intentionally racial. And I am sick.” The fact this have 400k likes proves our society is DOOMED pic.twitter.com/LM0U06mfQy — Leo (@Swiftsbeatle13) October 15, 2025 The TikTok creator goes on to describe how the necklace has lighting bolts, but insists that the way these lightning bolts are designed is meant to represent something specific while acknowledging that the lyrics say, “dancing through the lightning strikes.” “They are specifically SS lightning bolts,” sampire1513 continues. “Okay? It is not ambiguous. That is exactly what it is.” She goes on with the conspiracy accusations. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout “And then, if you’ll look, there are eight of them,” the TikTok user says. “Why does that matter? Because H is the eighth letter in the alphabet. Many Nazi, neo Nazi circles, gangs, will put an 88, meaning [Heil] Hitler, they’ll put it in their bios, they’ll tattoo it on their bodies, they’ll put it on their motorcycles, their leather jackets … I’m not reaching … the 88 thing is extremely common.” Sampire1513 goes on to claim that the cross on the necklace is a “f***ing iron cross,” a German military medal. The social media creator said after seeing the necklace, there are only two options. “Number one, Swift’s team and Swift herself, they put this out, and they genuinely just didn’t know what they were doing. And it’s a complete happenstance that it resembles any commonly used Nazi dog whistles,” she said, noting that for this to happen, there would have to be no one on the team who is Jewish or who went through “cultural sensitivity training.” “…Option number two, which is, she knows exactly what this is, and that’s what she decided to put out. What the f***,” the user said. Sampire1513 demanded that Swift put out a statement condemning Nazism and hatred. “I don’t think I’m reaching at all,” she said in conclusion of the necklace’s alleged symbolism. “I think it’s clear as f***ing day.” The user set her TikTok account to private Thursday as the video continued gaining traction online. X users called her out for the allegations. “That’s some unhinged stuff right there. As someone who studied the 3rd Reich for many years at university – no, they don’t look like SS lighting bolts, those look like the last 2 letters in KISS. That looks NOTHING like the Iron Cross,” one commenter wrote. “If you see a [lightning] bolt and think nazi i think there’s only one person obsessed with nazis and it aint taylor swift,” another person said.

President Trump’s refusal to rule out the assassination of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has reignited debate about the reach of American power—and the constitutional limits that should protect our nation from unchecked covert actions. Trump’s Stand: No Denial on CIA Lethal Authority in Venezuela In a move that has sent shockwaves through diplomatic and intelligence circles, President Donald Trump openly confirmed that the CIA was granted authority to conduct covert and lethal operations in Venezuela. The primary target of these actions was none other than Nicolás Maduro, the embattled socialist president whose regime has long clashed with American interests. When directly asked if assassination was on the table, Trump pointedly refused to deny it, stating, “I don’t want to answer a question like that.” This dramatic stance has reignited the debate over presidential power and the proper limits on American covert action, especially when the target is a foreign head of state. For conservatives who value strong leadership but also demand accountability under the constitution, this episode is a stark reminder of the tension between defending American interests and upholding the rule of law. The policy decision did not emerge in a vacuum. US–Venezuela relations have deteriorated sharply since the days of Hugo Chávez, with tensions escalating under Maduro amid charges of authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and narco-trafficking. The US has supported opposition leader Juan Guaidó and recognized him as Venezuela’s interim president, while applying sanctions and diplomatic isolation to the Maduro regime. In 2020, Operation Gideon—a failed coup attempt involving US-linked mercenaries—highlighted the lengths to which both sides were willing to go. With Venezuela crippled by economic collapse and mass emigration, the Trump administration justified its actions as necessary for counter-narcotics and regional stability. However, critics warn that authorizing the CIA for lethal action risks repeating Cold War-era mistakes and undermining America’s moral standing. Key Players and High-Stakes Power Struggles The drama in Venezuela is defined by a cast of powerful actors and clashing interests. On one side, President Trump and senior US officials, backed by the CIA and military planners, pursued a strategy of maximum pressure aimed at regime change. Their motivations have ranged from stemming the flow of drugs to safeguarding American security and promoting democracy. On the other side, Nicolás Maduro clings to power with the support of loyal military, Russian and Chinese backers, and a fractured domestic opposition represented by Guaidó. The Colombian government, accused by Maduro of complicity, and Venezuela’s military intelligence apparatus are also deeply involved. These dynamics have created a dangerous environment where the risks of escalation and unintended consequences are ever present, especially as the US continues significant military operations in the Caribbean region. As tensions escalate, the practical impact on Venezuelans and the broader region cannot be ignored. The threat or even suggestion of assassination has prompted Maduro to mobilize militias and intensify anti-US rhetoric, while ordinary citizens suffer from economic isolation and ongoing instability. Regional neighbors, including Colombia and Caribbean states, face the spillover effects of conflict and migration. The US policy, while framed as a defense of regional security, has polarized the international community and further isolated Venezuela on the world stage. Experts warn that setting a precedent for presidentially authorized assassination could erode international norms and embolden future administrations to bypass legal and ethical constraints. Expert and Legal Analysis: Where Are the Lines? Leading legal and human rights organizations have condemned the authorization of lethal CIA operations in Venezuela as a dangerous overreach. Amnesty International has labeled such moves “murder—plain and simple,” directly challenging the administration’s justification under US and international law. Academic analysts and former intelligence officials point out that the US has a long and checkered history of covert interventions in Latin America, often with disastrous results. Legal scholars are divided on whether presidential “findings” can legitimize assassination, but many argue this undermines the very constitutional checks conservatives have fought to preserve. While no confirmed assassination attempts have been reported under this new authority, the mere refusal to rule it out has set off alarms among those who believe in both strong national defense and the enduring value of American principles. Despite the controversy, the Trump administration has remained steadfast in framing its actions as necessary for the security and prosperity of the United States and its allies. Supporters argue that confronting hostile foreign regimes is essential to protecting American interests and deterring adversaries. Yet, the episode serves as a sobering reminder: unchecked executive power—no matter how well-intentioned—can pose as grave a threat to liberty and constitutional order as any external foe. The debate over the limits of American covert power, especially regarding assassination, will continue to shape our nation’s foreign policy and constitutional debates for years to come. Sources: Wikipedia: Operation Gideon (2020) TRT World: Trump authorises CIA covert action in Venezuela Truthout: Amnesty condemns US lethal operations in Venezuela Irish Sun: US weighing plot to assassinate Maduro Politico

'But only Democrats denounced him'

The incident occurred in a section without guardrails.

'F*ck ICE, f*ck this administration, and f*ck Trump!'

'We both kind of look at each other in shock'

'Go in and kill them'

'fails to protect women'