scourge165

Another good question to be is...if Trump ISN'T in the "Epstein files," why hasn't his administration released the documents? That was a campaign promise. He said he'd do it. What reason is there not to? Because he was clearly on the Island. He was at the parties. I'm NOT saying he was raping girls there(if they were underage, it was rape, it doesn't have to be forcible)... but, he was there. I don't think this will matter though as I think this will just get chalked up to Musk being upset with Trump. Similar to how cabinet members who served under him either didn't endorse him were painted as being bitter. Guys like General Kelly or...whoever, it's a long list.

It was always known he was in the Epstein files. Just as it's known Clinton and... dozens of others are. Just being in the files isn't evidence he was raping children... I am still baffled how Trump trying to appoint Acosta in 2017 (maybe 2018) wasn't the end for Trump though. You look at ALL the extrapolations people make to connect the Clintons to things. They know X amount of people who've died and therefore, they must all be behind it. But nobody made this VERY clean and straight line connection to Trump trying to put the guy who got Epstein a non-prosecution agreement...into his cabinet? You had a massive prosecution in process against Epstein. You had witnesses prepared to testify and he came in and gave Epstein a deal with very little jail time(only jail) and he got work release and then house arrest, but he did this BEHIND the backs of the prosecutors and he didn't make the victims aware and the most egregious part was he gave blanket immunity for all conspirators, both KNOWN and UNKNOWN. Then Trump...who was friends with Epstein(yeah, I know, he had a falling out...which seems to happen a lot as evidence by this thread)... But NOBODY from the right questioned why would Trump give the guy who gave everyone he DIDN'T know about a pass? That meant if we DO find out that lets say Bill Clinton, he was down there and he raped a 14-year-old girl, he also has immunity? I'm just using a Democrat as an example so people will see how fk up that is. Granting full immunity "any potential co-conspirators," just ended that ENTIRE investigation. So maybe it's C. My GUESS would be there are SO many names of prominent people who are on the Epstein files, but not evidence they actually did anything. You can prove Trump flew on the...Lolita Express or whatever, he went to the Island, but sooo many people went there. It's probably like the Diddy parties(Which...Trump also attended). But just being AT the parties doesn't mean you were in the back rooms doing the "freak offs," or whatever the hell was going on there. So basically my guess is it was mutually assured destruction without being able to differentiate between guilt and who was present.

He's grossly misrepresenting the data. That's why he's not going to show you. There have been more employers who are dropping a 4 year degree as a requirement in favor of experience and because they're simply trying to find employees. A College degree is still incredibly valuable on average when looking at long term earning potential as a whole(this is likely where he'd compare a skilled welder with someone who went to get a...Philosophy degree as "proof" that's not true, but on balance, it is). I'm not even sure what his point is though. Does he think people who DIDN'T go to College are MORE ready or...what? He also went to College twice. Seems like there was a reason for that(meaning... he did it for his career/earning potential, not attacking his intellect, though if you think Hitler is far left, that surely raises the question).

I don't think this is some new phenomenon. I think it's always been like this. I think one big thing is you have 18-year-old kids who come from conservative backgrounds(just part of it) and they get to College and they learn History and there is an...overcorrection. They learn some ugly truths, but they learn them about the US first and there is very much an "America-Bad," reaction. They used modern morality and apply it to the past... which is always... stupid. It's how you get people who want Lincoln statutes taken down. I also think like anything, you see a lot of group think. And finally, I think in MOST cases, you have a minority of students who get a majority of the spotlight. You read Marx and Engels and you think... that makes sense...and it does in theory. And then as you matriculate through, you realize it's only in theory(most of the time) and you abandon that. I don't think it has anything to do with "indoctrination," and I don't think the College students protesting who are pro-Hamas represent a real significant portion of the College students... and I think they should have mostly been arrested. Not for chanting or protesting, but the ones who wouldn't leave. I also found the students who tried to dictate how the Universities invested their money to be... honestly just amusing. I don't know WTF they thought they were, but... I just laughed at that one.

I like how the entire basis for your argument Hitler isn't the epitome of a right wing extremists is just...'nuh-uh.' You can keep talking about my "leftist" professors all you'd like, he wasn't. It's a fact, he banned the socialist parties, he hated communists, I've given you numerous reasons and you are just not capable of understanding it. And that's fine. Hitler was a Nationalist, Ethnocentric, Authoritarian. You act like I'm calling you that(though...you have called me a Communist despite the fact that I've never uttered a positive word about communists, Mao or the like) but you can't accept Hitler was on the opposite end of the spectrum as Stalin and Mao. Cool. Neither represent ANYTHING we've EVER had as a form of leadership in the United States, but this is still an important point for you for...some reason I guess. You're wrong, but you're confidently wrong...so that's something I suppose.

It's not? You used an example where there was absolutely nothing that looked intentional other than an attempt to score(16:45 in the Fix-Vito match). Also...another sport where head to head contact is allowed? Football. EVERY-SINGLE-SNAP. There's constant head to head contact... and often incidental. MMA. But I really don't care about other sports. This isn't preventable. It's part of the sport...and you get some black eyes, you give some...nothing you can do about it.

Especially when they're children. I BELIEVE they range from 6 to 18(not certain on that though). The wife has also complied with the investigation and showed the authorities the last text messages she sent him. Seems strange to "bet" the wife and children were involved....

As for Lankford, also just blatant bull$hit; Lankford was threatened(according to him) and said he voted against the bill HE and the REPUBLICANS wrote because it'd become a "political prop." It was NOT a Mitch McConnell bill, it was a Republican bill, a James Lankford Bill. This was about Trump being able to run on the border, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't even need to spend time on this one. I've seen so many people just blindly repeat that, I have this one ready to go. The bill would NOT have allowed 4K+ "illegals" per day to enter. No, the immigration bill proposed under President Biden did not permit 4,000 people to enter the U.S. daily. In fact, the bill aimed to restrict asylum access and tighten border controls when migrant encounters reached certain thresholds.verifythis.com+2politico.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2 Specifically, the bipartisan Senate bill included a "border emergency authority" that would have been mandatorily activated if unauthorized border encounters averaged 5,000 per day over seven consecutive days or hit 8,500 in a single day. Once triggered, this authority would have allowed the Department of Homeland Security to bar most migrants from seeking asylum, effectively turning them away without processing their claims. nypost.com+9factcheck.org+9newsweek.com+9politifact.com+1poynter.org+1 Additionally, the bill provided discretionary authority to activate these restrictions if encounters averaged 4,000 per day over a week. wusa9.com It's important to note that "encounters" refer to instances where border officials stop individuals attempting to enter the U.S., not the number of people allowed into the country. Therefore, the claim that the bill would have allowed 4,000 people to enter daily is misleading. politifact.com+1politifact.com+1 The bill faced opposition and did not pass in the House, with critics arguing it either went too far or not far enough in addressing immigration concerns.

THEY-WERE-NOT-ARRESTED. No matter how many times you say it, it's not true. I already clarified this. Being detained by ICE is NOT being "arrested." His oldest child, a Daughter just graduated from HS. And you're "betting" they were in on this because you don't understand the distinction between arrested and detained.

Yeah, you might want to go back to School a 3rd time if you're that ignorant. I already walked you through this. YOU think he was on the "left" because of the name of the party(a name that was used as a pejorative term initially). He banned unions. He quite literally PROSECUTED Communists and Socialists. He also banned both parties. He was an Ethno-nationalist authoritarian...who...again, quite literally banned unions, socialist, communists and locked them up and put them in Prison. If you still haven't wrapped your head around the fact that he's far-right, you're just special boy... You're not only wrong here, you're comically wrong.

It was an emergency though, right? Seems weird you'd wait over 2 years when it's an EMERGENCY! I mean, Trump can't go through the proper channels to implement his tariffs because the trade deficit with the Penguins and Seals is an "emergency," but...you're really defending a Presidential Candidate stopping his party from passing a bill THEY thought was a good bill. Is that really your position?

"My hero's?" My heros are Roosevelt(Teddy, though I liked FDR just fine)...Washington, Eisenhower, Tesla, Lincoln, Pat Tillman...so many more, my mentor and former coach, 1.3M people who've laid down their life for this Country...my Father above all. But because you're too small of a person to just say, "yeah, Pol Pot was stupid," you've somehow extrapolated that because my political beliefs are to the left of yours, I must admire murderous animals? So by your own logic, YOUR hero must be Hitler since you're to the right, yeah? Nowhere on this board have I EVER expressed a modicum of support for ANY communist regime, person or ideology. I've advocated putting tariffs on China and going after their trade practices and enforcing a Tik Tok ban. You're flailing here...BADLY. 15,000 self identified "communists," out of ~360M. Just the Aryan Brotherhood is stronger. And STILL, absolutely none of that is a coherent response to 'America's biggest Domestic Terrorist threat,' and you coming up with...again, what MAY be the dumbest post I've seen on here by saying "what about Pol Pot!" 1-Not Domestic. 2-Nearly 50 YEARS after he was deposed. 3-I'd bet less than 1 of 20 people know who he is(I'm guessing you had to google..."Communist+Bad." And then to top it off, you posted a link that you CLEARLY did-not-read as it not only didn't support your argument, it contradicted it! Oh, and it was from hid DEATH in 1998!!! Dude, just own this one and stop trying to argue friggin Pol Pot is the largest Domestic(I'm still not sure you understand what that means) National Security threat...I'm getting embarrassed for you.

Are you really making the argument that because it took you 20 years to finish College, you're an authority on Colleges and what they teach? "Commie indoctrination program." Of course...LOL...

LOL..."thwarted by a fleet of buses." Anyone remember when DeSantis was talking about his state being overrun by the undocumented and then he had to take in those seeking asylum from Texas just so he could fulfill his big publicity stunt and send them to Martha Vineyard? Look, this is a really stupid argument... that this was part of a some plan to get them to vote. They can't vote. Democrats have made no attempt to make them eligible to vote. There was ONE bill and it was in New York where it was proposed that PERMANENT RESIDENTS be allowed to vote in local elections. So that included people people who'd lived in the Country for 30 years, who had Green Cards, who worked and raised families. This nonsense about some master plan is just "the great replacement theory," in Southern Strategy verbiage. Lets also remember that the last administration tried to pass a massive and comprehensive immigration reform bill. One written by Republicans, the Senate agreed to it. Trump called and shut it down as he wanted to be able to run on the border. Now...since I can see in your quotes who you're arguing with, it's probably not worth mentioning how many of the Countries that people are trying to flee are countries in which we sowed the seed for chaos and dysfunction in the 1980s under Reagan by running the largest drug cartel the world had seen(at least since the British Empire) while using those funds to then undermine the existing Governments and keep countries in a state of civil war, the impact of which is still felt, but that would go over their heads. So it's simpler to just point out that after Obama..."The deporter in chief" for...better of worse based on your opinion(5.3M deported by Obama, less than 1M deported under Trump) and then Trump who spoke...pretty negatively about our friends to the South, there was an influx in asylum seekers. Now if you understand the law, you know the U.S. Constitution guarantees asylum seekers the right to a fair hearing through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies to all "persons" within the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. So what they tried to do was increase the number of border patrol agents...and then MOST importantly, increase the number of judges hearing these cases. You could have shortened the time from YEARS down to 6 weeks. But again, that wouldn't get Trump elected. We need to have strong borders. There's no question about that. We also cannot just round up everyone who is here that's not a citizen or with a Green Card. That's...cutting off your nose to spite the brown people. If for no other reason than go with the Greed Angle. We NEED the workers. Though we shouldn't take advantage, but deporting every undocumented immigrants going to cost trillions in the cost of actually doing it and it'll cost trillions to our economy and cause late 60s, 1970s, early 80s like inflation.

Holy...that would make SOOO much sense. One after doing a good snort of adderall(everyone wants to be like Trump if you're MAGA)... and the other is after he's coming down...a little bit.

Yes...I did. I know SOMETHING about McGirt v Oklahoma. I also ASKED the question, a genuine and honest question in good faith as to what authority ICE had there. But since you quoted me where I said it returned jurisdiction to most of Tulsa and Eastern Oklahoma(which it absolutely did as was the point of the lawsuit)....here's from the case. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma significantly impacted the legal landscape of eastern Oklahoma by affirming that a substantial portion of the state remains Native American reservation land.natlawreview.com Background of the Case The case centered on Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Seminole Nation, who was convicted in an Oklahoma state court for crimes committed within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. McGirt argued that the state lacked jurisdiction. .en.wikipedia.org+7law.cornell.edu+7theguardian.com+7 The Supreme Court's Decision On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the land reserved for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country" for purposes of federal criminal law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that Congress had never explicitly disestablished the reservation, and thus, the state's jurisdiction over crimes involving Native Americans on this land was invalid. natlawreview.com+5scotusblog.com+5indianlaw.org+5natlawreview.com+3theguardian.com+3axios.com+3 Scope of the Ruling The decision reaffirmed the reservation status of approximately 3 million acres in eastern Oklahoma, including parts of Tulsa. While it did not transfer ownership of land or alter civil governance structures, it clarified that, for certain legal purposes, notably criminal jurisdiction, these areas are recognized as Native American reservations. Implications and Subsequent Developments The ruling has had profound implications: ------ So... no, I didn't have any idea to what extent the federal authorities could go on that land, but I DID know that the stated lacked jurisdiction. I shared the part that I understood and ASKED about the part I was uncertain about. And yes, I'm SOOO sorry I gave you a clown emoji for your....stupid little...quip.

The dude brought up Pol Pot when talking about the biggest Domestic Terrorist threats to the United States today... If you ask him for a double blind study, he's... just going to assume you're talking about blind people....getting Lasik or eye transplants. 'So what, unless Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles do it, it doesn't count.'

I had 2 professors who shared political views. My History professor. He was a...~45 year old black guy(when I was a 20 year 19-23 year old). He taught the greatest class I've ever taken. It was 4 hours a day 4 days a week for...I think it was 6 weeks. It was WWI and then WWII and through Eisenhower, but it was nearly all about the great War and then WWII. The unintended consequences of WWI, the Treaty of Versailles and how it led to WWII, the "Stabbed in the Back Myth," in WWI that led to the uprising of Hitler. The German's who thought they could win the War, but the Government gave up on them. How they sowed the seeds of distrust in the Government, used force, the threat of force and Nationalism to bring the Nazi party to prominence. I didn't know his political views for...first year and a half that I knew him. Then he became my advisor and he was not just a conservative, but he was VERY conservative. But...we had good conversations, debates, arguments, whatever. He never brought that into the class room. And then my Freshmen year, I was in some stupid class... I don't even recall what it was, it was one my Coach set up for me to get an easy 4.0 to start the semester and a new professor was taking over this class. It was almost a healthy like class. I remember walking into class one day, I had a GF in the class, she punched me(playfully) and I grabbed her(again, playfully) and she was laughing the whole time...it was 15 minutes before class and she was joking saying she could beat me up. Think corny 18-year-old kids and so I held the sleeves of hear sweatshirt together with one hand and I said, Ok, lets see it, beat me up. Sadly, I only remember that because she reported me and reported that she thought the girl was in danger(didn't even have the guts to say something at the time...which is odd if you think someone is in danger). It was her first year and she was not fired, but rather not asked back the following year. That's not overtly political, but...it kinda is. You can tell most people don't have the first clue what College is like because they think it's just people there sitting around talking about the influence Pol Pot has on modern domestic terrorism and how that's a great thing and how we should burn the rich and how the French Revolution was cool, but we should mix it up a bit more with the Chinese Revolution...while throwing in a dash of socialism. It's actually kinda comical to listen to people talk about College despite...not having gone. Which is totally fine. There are a LOT of very important jobs that we don't have enough people available for right now that pay easy 6 figures and do not require a College degree. My point isn't you're dumb if you didn't go to College. Plenty of dumb people went to College. Hell, Jimmy may have gone(I mean, most likely one of the Trump U students, but still). Rather, don't watch the extreme, loud and obnoxious minority that you see on social media or the news and then extrapolate based off of THAT what YOU think College must be. it's...frankly embarrassing.

It would be closer to HURTING the United States Economy over 10 years than it'd EVER be to COSTING the United States 151B a year. You should know, if it's Jimmy, he's wildly misinformed and he's done little else but take someone's tweet and pass it off as their own. You should also just know he certainly didn't put ANY thought in it. The organization that came up with that number...pretty much just made it up. They includes NATURALIZED CITIZENS. So..."Lawful" citizens of the United States.... but if one of their parents was here illegally, THEN they count. Why? BECAUSE IT'S LITERALLY THE ONLY REASON THIS ORGANIZATION EXISTS. FAIR... Federation for American Immigration Reform; 1-So...now with that in mind, understand, they're INCLUDING Elon Musks 12 children, Barron Trump. Both Melania and Elon were "Unlawfully" here. Elon was here on a student visa. He dropped out. Once he did that, he was obligated to report that and return to South Africa. Melania was here on a Tourist or Business Visa. She was explicitly banned from engaging in paid work. The difference... which I'd hope you get, but I understand Jimmy reads this is a...say British Businessman can come over here to try and secure funding, sell a product, whatever. He CANNOT come over here and take a job. So despite the fact that Barron Trump was born to Donald Trump and Elon Musk's children were born to a...harem of women, they were illegally in the Country at one point so "FAIR" counts them as well. 2-They do not include the HUNDREDS of millions in taxes they pay into the system that they will NEVER receive benefits from. That just...doesn't get added to how much they "cost" the United States. 3-They are CONSUMERS. They make money here and then they...spend money here. 4-This is the one that would REALLY screw the American Economy. If you took out every undocumented worker out of the Economy, it would cost 5 TRILLION over a decade and drop the GDP by an estimated 3%. Who do you think is going to work on the farms, harvesting the produce, working construction... And that's before you add the ASTRONOMICAL amount to go and find every person who has overstayed a travel visa or who didn't show up to an asylum hearing. On top of that, they have a LOWER crime rate than American Born Citizens(though circling back, "FAIR" doesn't count American born despite the...ya know, constitution, so that's apparently become a point of contention). You want to find the criminals...yeah, of course. You want to get rid of everyone who is undocumented...ok. Understand, it won't happen. It will decimate the economy...and while people who are utterly clueless like @JimmySpeakskeeps using the numbers from "FAIR," which is kinda like trusting a study from the CCP on human rights violations(which according to them, they've NEVER committed one violation)... we're all capable of using some common sense. Economic Costs GDP Reduction: Undocumented immigrants constitute approximately 5% of the U.S. workforce. Their removal could lead to a 2.6% decrease in GDP, amounting to nearly $5 trillion over a decade. unidosus.org Tax Revenue Loss: In 2022, undocumented immigrant households contributed $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state and local taxes. Their absence would significantly reduce government revenues Deportation Costs: The direct cost of deporting all undocumented immigrants is estimated at $400 billion, PER YEAR to accomplish the widespread deportations that Trump wants. At a time when we're suffering from low Birthrates...which only look sustainable because we only compare ourselves to China... who threw out a generation of little girls because of their 1 child policy, people really think it's a good idea to just get rid of EVERY single non-citizen? Even those those who came from legal ports of entry, those who are working, and again, those who are some of the MOST essential workers who help harvest the food we eat... but you want to throw them all out, fine. Just please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying you're doing it for safety or doing it for financial reasons. The financial cost is catastrophic to the United States Government. As I said when Trump introduced the highest Tariffs, since 1920(higher than Smoot-Hawley) and we saw the markets absolutely tank, MAINLY the Bond Markets which are still in big-big trouble(which lasted 2.5 days and was also crippling our economy... if we were to do what some people are suggesting, it will be just as crippling as TACO's tariffs. One last thing, lets JUST look at Nebraska. Potential Economic Risks of Mass Deportations Labor Shortages: Nebraska faces one of the worst labor shortages in the country, with only 39 workers available for every 100 jobs . Removing undocumented workers could exacerbate this issue, leading to operational challenges across various industries.nprillinois.org Economic Disruption: The departure of undocumented workers could lead to decreased productivity and increased labor costs, potentially resulting in higher prices for consumers and financial strain on businesses .theguardian.com Broader Implications Beyond immediate economic impacts, mass deportations could disrupt communities, separate families, and place additional burdens on social services. The loss of a significant portion of the workforce may also deter investment and hinder economic growth.

No, he did not. You can say it 1000 times 'lil Jimmy, it doesn't make it any more of a lie. This is a study done by an organization AGAINST immigration as a whole. If you had even the slightest curiosity about ANYTHING you mindlessly repeat, you'd realize that's a fake number. That literally includes naturalized American Citizens(so for example...Barron Trump). Anyone born to someone who was here illegally. Elon Musk, HIS twelve kids would likewise be included(even the trans kid who turned him into a weird MAGA moron before MAGA(like last time) went back on EVERY promise to cut the deficit....Something that has happened every time we've had a Democrat as Commander in Chief since the early 80s. Guess how many Republicans have cut the deficit since 1980? ONE. Bush Sr. And he was run out of office for it! But back to the claim that...it's nonsense.

LOL...the Tampon Tim guys...the same guys who are probably too insecure to go buy their wives tampons because...'it's icky!' The man served his country for over two decades, he was a teacher, football coach, he was just a happy, nice guy. Not the guy I'd pick(Mark Kelly wins the election IMO) but...whatever.

It was a little creep how the guy filming it just randomly brought up that he thought they were stopping some human trafficking despite not having a clue what was going on. I honestly think a lot of people WANT there to be more horrific stories of trafficking so they can claim these INSANE numbers they believe to be true...are in fact true. Also very much an off-topic question, but I heard someone say this is "Native land," and...while it's not, it may have been, but...it's just not despite the pandering some do, I wonder if undocumented aliens could just go live in Tulsa or Oklahoma? After the McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling, it found that the United States had entered a treaty and they'd broken that treaty. I'm sure most heard about this, but it returned jurisdiction to...MOST of Tulsa and most of the Eastern part of Oklahoma to Native Americans. So...would ICE even be able to go in there? If I remember correctly, the Native American's basically agreed to maintain the status quo by in large, but I'm just curious if ICE or other federal agencies are allowed on there. This dates back to when it was the "Indians" land and the United States signed a treaty. I just wonder how strong that ruling was

It doesn't matter if there are people with Auto-immune disease, tough guys don't wear masks! Thems the rules!

The burden of proof is on those arguing in the affirmative. But, I'll play along. Empirical Evidence and Exhaustive Search If you've got thousands of years of this EVIL entity on Earth, taking all forms, but absolutely zero empirical evidence, logic dictates hat thing does not exist. Prove to me there aren't Elephants in the wild who taste like Peanut Butter and Chocolate. See how absurd that is? There were a dozen religions before Christianity with the miraculous conception, a resurrection and then an all powerful evil foe. Christianity just took that playbook, altered it and then made some massive mistakes. One of them being, in the original writing(decades to centuries after the death of Christ) in ancient Hebrew, Mary, Jesus' Mother is referred to as "the Young girl Mary." The "Young Girl," and "The ***I have a limited vocabulary***" were close enough that when they translated it, it became the ***I have a limited vocabulary***. In fact, the Bible is edited every year and is so far removed from it's original version...a group of glorified editors deciding what to put in and what to take out. But belief is free. Go ahead. Just don't turn it into a silly argument. "Well, I can't answer why he's real, so you answer why this entity that there is zero empirical evidence of is not."