Unfortunately I'm not completely sure, it's much tougher to find good info on k2 than k1. Sauerkraut k2 values are fairly low, so it's possible kimchi is pretty low as well. The one thing that seems consistent is natto is way more than everything else (like 100x), though that's mainly a Japanese thing.
It is also available as a supplement, often packaged with vitamin d3. On the off chance you're vegetarian it would probably be a good idea, otherwise I can't say for sure whether it would be beneficial, but something like 100 mcg every other day probably wouldn't hurt either.
That's kind of how a lot of supplements go though, unless you're completely deficient it can be tough to tell whether or not they're providing some benefit or not doing much, and there's often no generally agreed on scientific consensus, whatever that's worth.
Plant based foods are usually k1.
K2, which the above post referred to, is usually meat based foods and some fermented foods.
Liver, chicken, grass fed beef, egg yolks, and cheeses seem to be good sources from what I can find. Natto (fermented soybeans) is apparently a very good source as well but it's mk-7 instead of mk-4, not sure if that makes a different or not. Same with sauerkraut.
The entire Hiding With Biden campaign will go down in history as one of the worst Presidential campaigns ever
It's amazing that it only took them a single election cycle to top "I'm with her." The campaign that didn't even go to wisconsin.
The campaign whose only platform was "I'm not Trump." The campaign whose candidate could barely be bothered to actually go out and speak. The campaign that tried to run up the numbers in Chicago and New Orleans instead of winning the electoral college. The campaign whose candidate didn't even have the decency to give a concession speech to her supporters on election night.
And they've already topped that campaign this year, with the exact same "platform," and a candidate who is even harder to find out of his bunker and on the campaign trail. Amazing.
STATE senate, not US senate. Interesting find though.
Also Obama was able to use the courts to basically destroy his republican opponent in his actual US senate campaign as well. His opponent, Jack Ryan, had divorce custody documents that were sealed at the request of both he and his ex-wife. The documents were from 1999, election in 2004.
And what do you know, a week after he wins the Republican primary, a judge magically happens to order those sealed documents released. They contain a bunch of weird sexual allegations, basically dooming his campaign and guaranteeing Obama's senate victory. He wins against Ryan's replacement 70% to 24%, complete blowout.
Those released allegations may well have been true, but after having been sealed for five years at the request of both parties and throughout the republican primary, a judge conveniently decides to release them at the perfect time to basically lock up an Obama victory. Contrast that to, say, the Anthony Weiner files, which will most likely remain locked up forever. Or all the files of congressional members who have used taxpayer money to pay off sexual assault/harassment settlements.
Because it "hurts the Black Lives Matter movement." There was a quote from some student on another article about this situation that said that. Dug up the quote:
“Quoting the New York Post as a reputable source just kind of meant that she was throwing all of the education that we've gotten out the window, and it was kind of obvious that she just wanted to make a negative statement,” Shinn said. “She was trying to scapegoat a victim, she was trying to undermine the Black Lives Matter movement. To me, it seemed like she didn't care.”
The truth comes out at the end. They'll put whatever justifications they can think of in front of it, but at the end the real motive comes out - it "undermine(s) the Black Lives Matter movement." That's all that matters. The truth doesn't matter. They've decided that the movement is right, and must proceed by any means necessary. The facts of any individual case are irrelevant, and anyone who posts something harmful to the movement, even if it's completely true, is an enemy.
I mean, think like them for a moment. You either believe your cause is right or you support it to gain personal social power, doesn't matter which. So every argument you make, every action you take, is just to increase the power and support of the movement, because that's what's most important to you. So if you see someone post something that seems to contradict and undermine your own side, or support your opposition, you assume that they're doing the same thing as you - just for the other side. So rather than just thinking they might be posting some facts or working through an argument, you consider them an enemy who must be destroyed.
I understand where you're coming from, but sending in a bunch of troops to crush the riots won't fix the problems that led to them in the beginning. It will just prolong them.
It's like if you have a spoiled kid who keeps getting into all kinds of trouble but their parents always bail them out. They'll never learn, and the problems will keep happening.
The idiots on the streets? Sure.
But the people in charge of encouraging and supporting these riots don't care about picking off a couple dozen Trump supporters. They care about winning the election and silencing EVERY Trump supporter.
A few dozen, even a few hundred or thousand dead on either side doesn't matter to them. They just want the video to throw up on CNN to establish a narrative. Their real goal is complete control over hundreds of millions of people, they don't care about beating you on the streets. That's just a tool to achieve the goal.
Yes, I've seen even devoted, Trump derangement system extreme anti-Trumpers struggle to rationalize the riots. These people likely won't come around to Trump before November, but you know there are people in the middle that absolutely will.
And even a few of the dedicated anti-Trumpers may end up just not voting at all or voting third party.
Yes. Which is more important - forcefully clamping down on the "protests" to stop a couple dozen people from being beaten and killed and a couple hundred businesses from being burned?
Or literally losing your entire country and submitting hundreds of millions of people to a burgeoning totalitarian control-regime for who knows how many decades?
Which will result in more death and destruction?
And will forcefully stopping the protests really fix the leadership problems that allowed the burning to begin with - and may allow the same thing (or worse) to happen again in the future?
The left has given us the biggest gift imaginable with these riots. Yes, it sucks for the people living in those cities, but it exposes them for how crazy and out of control they are, as well as how terribly they govern their cities.
What the Democrats want us to do is go in guns blazing so they can call Trump and his supporters a bunch of violent, gun crazed lunatic racists who hate democracy and the free expression of opinion.
It's a stupid strategy. All we have to do is nothing and they look terrible. But it we do exactly what they want and send in the troops to bash some "protesters" on camera, all of a sudden we make their idiotic strategy look like genius.
So let's not do that. Let's just take the gift they've given us and win the election, then we can get to work fixing all this crazy shit. The best way to fix it right now isn't by bashing their heads in, it's taking away the corrupt political power and money flows from their organizers.
Once that's done, and it may take some time, we can focus on accountability for criminal actions. No external money to fund these protests and actual consequences? The problem will 99% go away.
No, let them destroy their own cities. We need it to be as clear as absolutely possible what happens when Democrats are in charge. Only help if their Democrat leaders publicly grovel and beg.
It's better to have a few months of idiots running amok in a few cities than to lose the country for fifty years. Letting these cities remain shitholes for a while as their Democrat leaders screw around is a small price to pay compared to what's at stake.
Once your brain stops receiving enough blood and oxygen, you're not going to be doing much thinking. There might be a few minutes between normal brain functioning and complete loss of consciousness but you won't have the energy to experience strong emotions, it would be more like "Guess I'm on the ground now" rather than "FUCK."
They were selling for a profit on the actual pill, but you're not considering R&D costs.
USA = big profits to cover everything
European discount countries = small extra profit, but only if you can develop (or acquire) the drugs in the first place
So yes, they make more than not selling there at all, but Americans get screwed enough to cover the initial R&D costs plus lobbying costs and a healthy profit margin.
So this should bring US costs down and force Europe costs up to match. Whether or not it will cause some minor decline in drug development is tough to say. If Biden gets in office though they'll probably find some way to get back to screwing Americans out of their money.
There are a couple Trump ads I've seen on TV that are frustrating since that should be so much better. Like they'll play 3 second snippets of Biden at 50% volume and then a loud voiceover at 100% volume for 5 seconds. Just... let Biden talk. That's all you need. There was another one that was a good idea showing the riots but again kind of a preachy voiceover layered on top that just sounds like your standard, inauthentic political droning.
It's a bit disappointing since people will post trump ads and videos on this site (and formerly on the_donald subreddit) that are so much better, both official trump campaign videos and unofficial user made stuff, but then what shows up on tv just comes off as a generic, mediocre political ad.
Even if that's true, there are probably something like 10 million people in the US that would be willing to be president on the Democratic ticket. Of those 10 million possible people to choose from... #2 and #3 are somehow Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?
Like think if you've got a professional sports team. Sure your backup players aren't as good as your starters, but they're still pretty good. I'm not sure the Democrats actually have anyone good. Like who do they even have? Someone we've never heard of? Someone not even on anyone's political radar?
And by "good" I don't mean good policy, but just able to run a solid election campaign, not being senile, and not unnecessarily outing yourself as a dishonest sociopath to a friendly talk show host.
Someone have a source or link to more info on this?
Edit: Looks like it's true the same guy did an independent autopsy report on both cases, but he actually gave the opposite conclusion to Epstein's case than the official narrative, that it looked like a homicide:
But the private pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, said on the morning TV show “Fox & Friends” that Mr. Epstein, 66, experienced a number of injuries — among them a broken bone in his neck — that “are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation.”
“I think that the evidence points to homicide rather than suicide,” said Dr. Baden, who observed the autopsy done by city officials.
Was wondering that as well. Someone posted the full video above:
https://twitter.com/TheRevAl/status/1284608992615038977
In the full video, it's not quite as bad as the picture but still very weird, a lot of the time her eyes look very dark like you can't see or can barely see the white parts. So I don't know if her irises are somehow enlarged or her skin has somehow been pulled so we see less of the whites of her eyes or something else.
At about 9 seconds she looks mostly normal but then tilts her head about 10 degrees and her eyes look like black voids again.
That's a great video for anyone who has the time. We really need to talk more about how badly these schools are failing to educate kids.
Many of us who grew up in areas with good schools never hear about how mind-bogglingly bad the results of these schools are, and as the video says, it's not just a problem of money - many of these failing schools are receiving as much as $20,000 per student. And yet we have multiple of these schools with NOT A SINGLE STUDENT passing basic math proficiency tests. This should be an absolute alarm bell and we don't hear a peep.
And as the video talks about, there are examples of charter schools passing all of their students in proficiency tests while the normal schools barely pass any, when the schools' student body came from the same pools of students. This means that these students are absolutely capable of success if they weren't in such terrible schools (and the charter schools actually usually receive LESS funding per student, so it's not a money issue).
The costs of this failure to our country both economically and politically is almost beyond measure. It's immense. And what about the students? They have no future prospects. This really is a vital issue for our country, and one that we could maybe even convince some liberals who are able to have a calm conversation that we need to change.
It's not happening. The far left isn't going to get it's revolution by actually overthrowing the government - not even in Democrat run areas.
What they might get is a "revolution" by voting for people who just want to take advantage of them, who will join them to silence their enemies but ultimately are just interested in their own power. If the left has a revolution, that's the form it will take.
I responded to a person in another thread on here who said there were 18 million people ready to rise up and start this far left revolution, that they have the media, social media, etc all on their side. They said we needed to shut them down through force immediately to prevent this. One day later and it's painfully obvious that isn't happening. They're already trying to walk back this autonomous zone claiming it wasn't actually serious, that it's just a protest.
All they can do is start violence and have the media try to blame us for it, but that only works to a certain degree. If they try to start a real "revolution," they commit political suicide.
Our main concern should be the same as it was before, election fraud being committed until they're in a position they can never lose power again. They're already at the maximum amount of rioting and violence that the media can cover up for them. As I said, any more and they are committing political suicide.
So we really should just sit back and let them destroy themselves rather than trying to jump in when they are destroying their own cities. (I know it sucks for the few people who are living there and aren't crazy, but we need to step back and let the left understand the consequences of their own ideas.) Don't send in the national guard, let them see the results of their mayors and governors sitting on the sidelines and telling police to abandon their precincts.
This is a test. They're seeing how we respond, and the next day it'll be a new thing. If we let this slide and try to starve them out, everywhere across the country they'll do the same thing.
Honestly, let them. They don't have enough popular support for this. There are many left leaning people that are completely oblivious to the fact that the far left has taken over their party and media narrative. They don't understand that the far left are not just fringe weirdoes, but now make up the heart of the Democratic party's messaging. Tell them that a substantial part of the left legitimately hates white people and they'll roll their eyes.
But force them to watch as insurgent groups across the left takeover sections of major cities as their Democratic Party leaders sit there and twiddle their thumbs, because if they come out against it their own base will destroy them? An event the media has no choice but to cover? Those moderate leftists will finally start to understand that the things you've told them that they've been brushing off weren't actually crazy. We're seeing that a little bit with these riots and buildings burning, but it still usually isn't enough to overcome the "but Orange Man bad" that lives in their heads.
Better we let this happen now than in 15-20 years when they might actually might have the support to pull it off. They want to create chaos and show us the failure of their Democratic leaders and how insane they are? Let them do it.
He does a show for cnbc, which is comcast. The audience of cnbc is a little more conservative but it's ultimately still comcast so none of their hosts are going to be allowed to criticize the establishment too harshly. He also might have a few wall street bridges he doesn't want to burn.