I used to wonder how a country could fall into a dictatorship. Now I see all it takes is crazy people impeding lawfully appointed federal officers who are doing their job... and trying 3 times to assassinate the democratically elected sitting president... oh and rioting every time something happens you don't like! (Best to smash up some poor bastards shop to show the man you mean business! Maybe a little light looting too!)
Really though, congratz China, conrgatz Russia your doing a bang up job and you're not even firing a bullet. Can't wait to see how things are run if and when the US goes tits up. I'm sure it will be a vast improvement over the current administration.
Then other people cheering on creating a police state in response.
It doesn't matter how many times they do those things, we don't want a police state. People who argue that we do might as well be on the same team as them, because in concert they are both going to get us to the same place. Different player, same team. Team police state.
I was a liberal democrat in the 1990s. Had no problem with ICE. Everyone moved to the far left of me and I became a moderate. I got tired of being attacked by the far left so I joined the republicans. Voted for Trump because he can fix the economy.
He might be able to if they don't kill him first - but he won't, because he's a Zionist globalist first. No matter what he says, his actions speak louder.
Being anti immigrant is a far left idea historically. Watch gangs of ny, that Scorsese film subtlety showed the civil war was done to draft and kill young men to get them to stop being against immigrants, who competed for jobs. Long time dem trump is trying to make the anti immigrant movement look bad so conservadems can win elections again after biden ruined their reputation.
"I used to wonder how a country could fall into a dictatorship. Now I see all it takes is crazy people impeding lawfully appointed federal officers"
ICE literally commits terrorism in a state with very few illegal immigrants, while avoiding the 4 million illegal immigrants in Texas and California.
ICE are boarder guards, not the police, not the FBI, and have one job: protect the boarders. But they're not doing that, are they? They're arresting and murdering citizens and imprisoning their toddlers; they're lying about the charges; they're domestic terrorists. Like others, I'd like all of the illegal immigrants deported. Fucking do that, rather than domestic terrorism.
We get authoritarianism when we can convince enough people of lies, control the voting machines, bribe the politicians, destroy Epstein and other files, assign secret - cowardly criminal - federal officers to commit domestic terrorism, get $1.5 BILLION in fraud and crypto, destroy government agencies, destroy the middle class, isolate the US globally, and follow the playbook of Project 2025, to reduce government to a corporate kleptocracy.
It's the destruction of the US for the temporary wealth of a few rich people who are not investing in anything worthwhile. Anyone who protests this is a hero.
There is video evidence of ICE terrorism. That's sufficient proof. There are also numerous official records of the locations of 4 million undocumented immigrants at the southern boarder. That's suffient proof. And there is absolutely nothing Communist-related in my comments. At least you know when you're incapable.
Self-referencing links are retarded when you know what links we want to see.
I'm making light, but I'm not joking.
When people ask you to provide evidence it's not only annoyingly lazy, it becomes downright rude to keep debating why you won't bother to support your claims - and by default you lose credibility.
Provide backup or just shut up to lower the signal to noise ratio.
After you show them yours, you can ask them to show you theirs.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE), also known as the Sagan standard, is an aphorism popularized by science communicator Carl Sagan. [...] It has been described as fundamental to the scientific method and is regarded as encapsulating the basic principles of scientific skepticism.
The concept is similar to Occam's razor in that both heuristics prefer simpler explanations of a phenomenon to more complicated ones. In application, there is some ambiguity regarding when evidence is deemed sufficiently "extraordinary". It is often invoked to challenge data and scientific findings, or to criticize pseudoscientific claims. Some critics have argued that the standard can suppress innovation and affirm confirmation biases.
Philosopher David Hume characterized the principle in his 1748 essay "Of Miracles". Similar statements were made by figures such as Thomas Jefferson in 1808, Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814, and Théodore Flournoy in 1899. The formulation "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" was used a year prior to Sagan, by scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi.
CrispyCritter and GuyWhite bring nothing to the discussion. A Google search confirms what I wrote. It's not my problem if they want to tell lies. I especially don't owe anyone here anything.
I'm not sure this is the same pumpkin. It would be beyond even socks' stupidity to use the same alias.
Usually socks can't contain his idiocy so long and so well.
If it is the same socks, he's behaving much much much better. IMO, it's too good to be true - I don't think socks can be this reasonable, even considering this pumpkin's rare peculiarity today.
Also late stage republic. It doesn't produce real accountability. So after 250 years of non-accountability and fake say over policy, it's a shock things aren't worse. Maybe we'll get there.
Log in
I used to wonder how a country could fall into a dictatorship. Now I see all it takes is crazy people impeding lawfully appointed federal officers who are doing their job... and trying 3 times to assassinate the democratically elected sitting president... oh and rioting every time something happens you don't like! (Best to smash up some poor bastards shop to show the man you mean business! Maybe a little light looting too!)
Really though, congratz China, conrgatz Russia your doing a bang up job and you're not even firing a bullet. Can't wait to see how things are run if and when the US goes tits up. I'm sure it will be a vast improvement over the current administration.
Then other people cheering on creating a police state in response.
It doesn't matter how many times they do those things, we don't want a police state. People who argue that we do might as well be on the same team as them, because in concert they are both going to get us to the same place. Different player, same team. Team police state.
Enforcing the law = police state?
All Trump and ICE are doing is enforcing the law passed by Democrats in the 1990s.
And the enforcement efforts are nothing more than what Clinton and Obama did in their admins.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/ice-arrests-clinton-obama-era-history-and-policies-b63b73
Unless, of course, you have TDS. In that case, “Trump is shredding the constitution!”
I was a liberal democrat in the 1990s. Had no problem with ICE. Everyone moved to the far left of me and I became a moderate. I got tired of being attacked by the far left so I joined the republicans. Voted for Trump because he can fix the economy.
He might be able to if they don't kill him first - but he won't, because he's a Zionist globalist first. No matter what he says, his actions speak louder.
Being anti immigrant is a far left idea historically. Watch gangs of ny, that Scorsese film subtlety showed the civil war was done to draft and kill young men to get them to stop being against immigrants, who competed for jobs. Long time dem trump is trying to make the anti immigrant movement look bad so conservadems can win elections again after biden ruined their reputation.
"I used to wonder how a country could fall into a dictatorship. Now I see all it takes is crazy people impeding lawfully appointed federal officers"
ICE literally commits terrorism in a state with very few illegal immigrants, while avoiding the 4 million illegal immigrants in Texas and California.
ICE are boarder guards, not the police, not the FBI, and have one job: protect the boarders. But they're not doing that, are they? They're arresting and murdering citizens and imprisoning their toddlers; they're lying about the charges; they're domestic terrorists. Like others, I'd like all of the illegal immigrants deported. Fucking do that, rather than domestic terrorism.
We get authoritarianism when we can convince enough people of lies, control the voting machines, bribe the politicians, destroy Epstein and other files, assign secret - cowardly criminal - federal officers to commit domestic terrorism, get $1.5 BILLION in fraud and crypto, destroy government agencies, destroy the middle class, isolate the US globally, and follow the playbook of Project 2025, to reduce government to a corporate kleptocracy.
It's the destruction of the US for the temporary wealth of a few rich people who are not investing in anything worthwhile. Anyone who protests this is a hero.
"ICE literally commits terrorism in a state with very few illegal immigrants, while avoiding the 4 million illegal immigrants in Texas and California"
A simple Google search provides many sources that show this is factually incorrect. What's your source for this apparently false statement?
A simple Google search shows that I've provided facts. Try it.
You do it and prove your statements.
Ask your mom to read to you the thread. The info is above.
You can't provide any evidence then. You lose.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence YoMamma. You will be as successful here as you were on Saidit.
lol - what do I lose, boy?
I'm not who you think I am, entitled little shit
Commie.
bootlicker
Can I have some of what you’re on? It must be some really good shit.
Did you downvote it?
Do you have the ability to refute any of it? Good luck.
Why should I refute something that can’t be proved? You think that it is true just because you ranted it?
Why should I not downvote unproven commie talking points?
So you admit you aren't able to refute any of it.
There is video evidence of ICE terrorism. That's sufficient proof. There are also numerous official records of the locations of 4 million undocumented immigrants at the southern boarder. That's suffient proof. And there is absolutely nothing Communist-related in my comments. At least you know when you're incapable.
So say you. All talk. No proof.
You know the evidence is available. You've failed.
Bring the receipts or noise like socks.
Huh? GuyWhite is trolling like a little bitch. It's not hard to locate information.
Bring out the links!
This is not some swashbuckling fancy fencing.
Gatekeepers - a fence is not given, only taken.
Lazy ponces need not apply. Put out or shut up.
This is a street fight with chains!
Bring out the links!!!
I don't know if you're joking. This doesn't require links:
https://goatmatrix.net/c/Dystopia/6g4VNVchTi#bmUypFHAwv
Self-referencing links are retarded when you know what links we want to see.
I'm making light, but I'm not joking.
When people ask you to provide evidence it's not only annoyingly lazy, it becomes downright rude to keep debating why you won't bother to support your claims - and by default you lose credibility.
Provide backup or just shut up to lower the signal to noise ratio.
After you show them yours, you can ask them to show you theirs.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE), also known as the Sagan standard, is an aphorism popularized by science communicator Carl Sagan. [...] It has been described as fundamental to the scientific method and is regarded as encapsulating the basic principles of scientific skepticism.
The concept is similar to Occam's razor in that both heuristics prefer simpler explanations of a phenomenon to more complicated ones. In application, there is some ambiguity regarding when evidence is deemed sufficiently "extraordinary". It is often invoked to challenge data and scientific findings, or to criticize pseudoscientific claims. Some critics have argued that the standard can suppress innovation and affirm confirmation biases.
Philosopher David Hume characterized the principle in his 1748 essay "Of Miracles". Similar statements were made by figures such as Thomas Jefferson in 1808, Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814, and Théodore Flournoy in 1899. The formulation "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" was used a year prior to Sagan, by scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi.
~ https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
CrispyCritter and GuyWhite bring nothing to the discussion. A Google search confirms what I wrote. It's not my problem if they want to tell lies. I especially don't owe anyone here anything.
You said that already.
Really? I'm soooo nice I said it twice.
Hey, socks!
Wrong nigger; ya nigger. And I see you still have nothing interesting to say, after all these years. Dude. Really.
I'm not sure this is the same pumpkin. It would be beyond even socks' stupidity to use the same alias.
Usually socks can't contain his idiocy so long and so well.
If it is the same socks, he's behaving much much much better. IMO, it's too good to be true - I don't think socks can be this reasonable, even considering this pumpkin's rare peculiarity today.
Ultimately we'll see.
Late stage shitliberalism is a ratchet state. Twist to the left tightens it, twist to the right, tightens it some more.
Here’s a flowchart that supports your statement.
https://img.gvid.tv/i/3fwFso2r.png
Also late stage republic. It doesn't produce real accountability. So after 250 years of non-accountability and fake say over policy, it's a shock things aren't worse. Maybe we'll get there.
Yeah, because things were just wonderful before...
Ron Paul is a nut job.
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror