13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I despise Harris and I always have, and I wouldn't support AOC because she's way too inexperienced just like Vance.

My ideal ticket would be Mark Kelly /Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly and Beshear. That team would likely beat any of the inferior candidates the Republicans will put out there.

Kelley is a clown. And your party is in a civil war. DSA will be your downfall.

Rubio will beat anyone the Democrats nominate.

8 hours ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

You could have made your regurgitated opinions, not facts a little shorter. We’ve read the same verbal diarrhea before.

Your hero’s Obama and Hillary completely Fu —-/ up Benghazi resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Navy SEAL’s turned CIA operatives.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

If Obama and Hillary are responsible for Benghazi, then Trump and Rubio by the same standard are responsible for the casualties in Iran.
Your heroes Trump and Rubio completely FU with the Iran War with 18 US service members killed and 756 wounded and counting, if you can believe Pentagon figures.
Tragically, Benghazi resulted in 4 American deaths.
Obama/Clinton’s Libya incident was based on an explicit UN Security Council request to protect civilians.
Trump/Rubio’s Iran War was a war of choice, based on nothing more than a 'feeling' Trump had.
YOU should be ashamed of yourself.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

Low value posts have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

 

21 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Sorry but anybody who asks for evidence of Trump's cheating is simply engaging in the art of baiting

Sorry but anyone who asks for proof of Trump's cheating is simply engaging in the art of baiting. Either you haven't been paying attention to his career or you're such a devoted follower you simply are willing to dismiss all the evidence.

So asking you to support your own claim is now "baiting"?

You're the one who said Trump has spent his entire life cheating and that he and the GOP have "made an art of it." I simply asked you for specific examples of what you're calling cheating.

Instead of answering, you tell me I haven't been paying attention or I'm a "devoted follower." That's avoiding the question, not answering it.

I'm not dismissing evidence I'm asking you to provide the evidence you're referring to. If it's as obvious and overwhelming as you say, giving two or three specific examples should be pretty easy.

You made the claim. I asked you to back it up. That's called a discussion, not baiting. Im going to say it again I dont blindly follow Trump, I dont agree with everything he does. Maybe I missed something, so please point it out.

22 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I'm not going to argue with a closed mind. If you want proof, give us proof that those thugs who murdered civilians faced trial. Not even to be found not guilty. Hushed up to be forgotten.

So again, you make the accusation and then expect me to prove your accusation wrong?

You called these deaths "murders" and said they were "hushed up." Those are your claims, not mine. I already pointed out that fatal incidents involving immigration agents have been investigated. Not every investigation results in a criminal trial.

A trial comes after investigators and prosecutors determine there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. The fact that an officer wasn't charged doesn't magically prove there was a murder and a cover-up.

And calling me "closed minded" doesn't answer anything. I've repeatedly said that if an ICE agent unlawfully kills someone, investigate it and prosecute the agent if the evidence supports it. How is that closed minded?

If you believe a specific ICE agent murdered a specific civilian and authorities covered it up, then name the case and show the evidence. I'll look at it.

But "they're thugs, they murdered people, it was hushed up, and you're closed minded if you ask me to prove it" isn't evidence. It's just repeating the accusation.

11 hours ago, newnative said:

Someone is 'claiming the entire 2020 election was stolen.' That would be Trump. And, the biggest 2020 election problem in Georgia would, again, be Trump, who broke the law and should be in jail for trying to strong-arm Georgia into finding him 11,000 more votes. Absolutely no question about that--he's recorded. There's your 'election integrity' right out the window--by Trump.

This is all easy to find with a little searching but Trump's claim that the 2020 election was 'stolen' from him remains a Big Lie. There is virtually no evidence whatsoever supporting his Big Lie. The evidence is all the opposite--as it usually is with anything Trump says. The election has been closely scrutinized by too many states and agencies to list here but what is important is what was found:

1. There were no more problems with your 'election integrity' in 2020 than any other presidential election.

2. The 2020 election was found to have been the most secure in US history.

3. The six crucial battleground states, with over 25 million votes among them, were likely studied the most. Fraudulent votes were found to total just 473, not enough to change the outcome in any of the states.

4. The big finding for 2020 was a huge 'trust gap' that emerged. The culprit? Well, for that we need to circle back to the Big Lie, which caused this big partisan split, which the US never had before. By constantly spouting his Big Lie, Trump has managed to create a controversy and sow doubt among some voters when there should be none.

   Now, we must ask ourselves why. The answer comes from Trump himself, who said if voting is made easy, Republicans will never win another presidential election. Trump knows 2020 is over and done. But, by continuing to spout the Big Lie at every opportunity, he can convince some people that making voting very difficult is necessary for election integrity, when it clearly is not. And, along the way, spout other lies, like the one that the US is the only country that uses mail-in voting--which Trump, himself, uses.

   That's the ultimate goal here, to suppress the vote as much as possible. Eliminate mail-in voting--except for Trump, close polling stations and make the remaining ones difficult to find, limit the number of voting machines--there are something like 50 of them I saw in one list that can be used to suppress the vote. But, even better, not even having elections at all--using the Big Lie excuse that the elections are not secure to cancel them altogether. Any other president would have shot down the idea of canceling the elections as utterly absurd--not Trump.

You're making another very large jump from "Trump wants stricter election rules" to "Trump's ultimate goal is to suppress the vote and eventually cancel elections."

Yes, Trump wants voter ID, documentary proof of citizenship, cleaner voter rolls and tighter rules for mail-in ballots. That's not a secret. He's openly advocating for those things.

But requiring someone to prove they're eligible to vote isn't the same thing as preventing an eligible citizen from voting.

If a voter-ID requirement is written in a way that makes it unreasonably difficult for legitimate voters to comply, then challenge that specific requirement. If polling places are deliberately closed to prevent certain legitimate voters from voting, show the evidence and challenge it. If Trump actually tries to cancel an election, I'll oppose that too.

But you can't simply declare that every election-integrity measure is "voter suppression" and then use that assumption as proof that Trump's ultimate plan is to cancel elections.

You also say Trump "knows 2020 is over and done." How exactly do you know what Trump privately believes? I think Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. I also think Trump continues to believe, rightly or wrongly, that there were serious problems with that election. Those are two separate questions.

And Trump's "find 11,780 votes" call doesn't automatically prove criminal election fraud either. If he had said, "create 11,780 fake votes because I know I lost," that would be an entirely different matter. He was claiming votes existed that Georgia officials told him did not exist. He was wrong, and Georgia's recounts confirmed Biden won. Being wrong about the existence of fraudulent votes and knowingly manufacturing fraudulent votes are not the same thing.

Most importantly, where is the evidence for your biggest accusation: that Trump's "ultimate goal" is not to have elections at all?

You went from voter ID and proof of citizenship to voter suppression to Trump eventually canceling elections.

That's a conclusion you've reached, not evidence that Trump has actually developed such a plan.

I'm perfectly willing to criticize something Trump actually does. But I'm not going to condemn him for something somebody predicts he might eventually do and then treat that prediction as established fact.

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Using rape-and-pillage corporate practices favored by Wall Street, Donald Trump made himself billions while swindling and bankrupting untold numbers of hourly workers and small businesses.

In recounting his “deal-making” experience, Trump says the important thing is that he made a buck, that he came out rich.

He ignores the father of five who lost his business when a Trump casino didn’t pay for cabinets. He discounts the minimum wage workers that a Trump resort cheated out of hundreds of dollars of overtime.

And that, Trump says, is how he’d run the country. Trump said that as president he’d treat the nation’s creditors the way he did the creditors in his repeated business bankruptcies, forcing them to accept pennies on the dollar owed. Somebody loses.

But it’s never billionaire Trump. When Americans elect a president, they want a leader who will look out for the little guy, not take advantage of him. Exploiting the little guy – and everybody else – to make a buck for himself is Donald Trump’s M.O. That’s not presidential. 

The terrible tale of Trump casinos in Atlantic City illustrates his relationship with money, workers and small business. His casino companies went to bankruptcy court four times. Tradesmen, small businesses and creditors weren’t paid. But Trump made out like a bandit. And he’s mighty proud of it.

“Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me,” he boasts. “The money I took out of there was incredible.”

The very sad part of the story Don is that it wasn't your money to take!

https://usw.org/billionaire-trump-fleeces-workers-small-businesses/

Okay, now at least you've provided some examples, so we have something specific to discuss.

But I'm still trying to understand how you're defining "cheating."

Trump's casino companies went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That's true. Creditors lost money and some contractors didn't receive everything they were owed. That's certainly fair game for criticizing Trump's business record.

But bankruptcy isn't "cheating." Chapter 11 is a legal process specifically designed to allow a company to restructure debts it can't pay. Creditors frequently accept less than the original amount owed. You may not like that system, but thousands of American companies have used it.

The same applies to disputed contractor bills. If Trump contracted for $500,000 worth of work, received the work, had the money and simply refused to pay because he knew the little guy couldn't fight him, I'd certainly call that unethical. If there was intentional deception involved, then show me that and I'll call it cheating.

But simply saying "contractors weren't paid in full" doesn't tell us why. Was the bill disputed? Was the work disputed? Was it part of a bankruptcy? Was there a settlement? Was there a court judgment finding fraud? Those details matter.

And the article you posted isn't exactly neutral reporting. It's a union advocacy piece using phrases like "rape-and-pillage" and "made out like a bandit." Fine, but rhetoric isn't evidence of fraud.

So we've gone from your original claim that Trump has spent his entire life "cheating" to examples of corporate bankruptcies, creditors taking losses and business/payment disputes.

You can absolutely argue those things make Trump a ruthless businessman or that you don't like the way he conducted business. That's you're opinion.

But if your claim is that he was actually CHEATING people, then identify the specific deception or fraud.

A business failure, bankruptcy or disputed bill isn't automatically cheating.

19 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

ChatGPT: ICE and other federal immigration agents have killed civilians, including U.S. citizens, and criminal accountability for those deaths has been extraordinarily rare.

Stop pretending Ignorant Cruel Enforcement (ICE) hasn't killed civilians who were US citizens or legally entitled to be here by law and got away with it 😂

let's stop pretending the people were just walking down the street minding their own business and not interfering with legal law enforcement operations.

i still dont understand how people think it's ok for someone to enter the country illegally and be able to just stay forever! If you want to live in the USA do it the right way same as my great grandparents did and millions of others.

15 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

How is this con man still in the White House?

Clearly the checks and balances established in and by the US Constitution are not working.

Time for the US military to step in and regain control of the country?

are you promoting a coup?

15 hours ago, Wingate said:

While I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, she did nail it with Deplorables. History has proven her spot on.

Trump calling his cult "Americans" is an affront to true patriots. See, REAL Americans support the ideals toward which the US is directed. Yes. America is always a work in progress, toward the goal of total legal equality and opportunity, freedom and liberty, but Trump and his cult have taken a few steps backwards.

Trump absolutely hates the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. He hates, freedom of speech, unless its unctuous and sycophantic praise for him. He hates freedom of the press, unless it's fawning toward him. He has directed all of his attack dogs against Americans who champion and use the 1st Amendment freedoms, even if the target is just a late night TV host.

Trump is also against equality, believing wealthy people have more rights and are not subject to the same laws as the less successful. Look at his absurd use of pardons. Yes, he did pardon 1600 low life terrorists and insurrectionists, but most of his pardons have been used to erase the crimes of donors and wealthy people. (Note the LINK). Heck, Trump pretends he's an Alpha male blowing up tiny boats---some of them just Trinidadian fishermen---that could never reach US shores, but pardoned the criminal who ran 400 tonnes of cocaine into the US. Trump even pardoned a guy who laundered money for Hamas, because the guy and his firm were doing business with Trump's World Liberty Financial.

Trump is also the ultimate beta male crybaby. It's NEVER His fault, and he NEVER can lose. He's still whining about the election he lost, even 6 years later. Trump's coin---more self-aggrandizement of a woefully insecure little girlyman---should have "Heads I win; Tails you lose" instead of e pluribus unum.

MAGAs could lose the Deplorable tag if they had the cojones to finally cowboy up and act like men, but they don't, so they won't. MAGAs are angry at themselves for being failures, rather than engaging is honest self-assessment and bettering themselves. I see it in the characteristic MAGA misogyny. They know in today's world the key to romantic success is "6-6-6", and in today's economy that could be "6-7-6". Be 6 feet or taller, makes 6 or 7 figures, and don't be packing what Stormy Daniels called "Not quite freakishly small, but well below average".

Sorry MAGAs, but in your misogyny, all of your faults are laid bare. When I see MAGAs waddling around Bangkok, beer bellies and spare tires, unable to attract a woman without opening his thin wallet, my immediate thought is, "Sorry about your dick".

Yahoo News

EXCLUSIVE: Committee Review Finds Trump Pardons Have Cost...

A Scathing Report from House Judiciary Committee Finds Cost of Trump Pardons Continues to Soar

Wow. There's so much personal hatred in this post that I'm not even sure where to start.

You begin by talking about "total legal equality," freedom and American ideals, and then spend half the post declaring millions of Americans "deplorable," failures, misogynists, cult members and apparently sexually inadequate because they don't share your politics.

Do you not see the contradiction?

lets talk about Trump's actual record. Don't like his January 6 pardons? Fine, I think that's a legitimate. Don't like a particular pardon? Name the person and let's look at the crime and why Trump pardoned him. Don't like something Trump did involving the First Amendment? Give a specific example and let's discuss whether it actually violated anyone's constitutional rights.

But saying "Trump hates the First Amendment" isn't evidence that he violated it. Calling 1,600 January 6 defendants "terrorists and insurrectionists" doesn't magically make every one of them a terrorist or insurrectionist. They were charged with a wide range of offenses, some very serious and some much less serious.

And then we get to MAGA voters.

Apparently people who disagree with you aren't "REAL Americans." They're deplorable, failures, misogynists, fat, poor, can't get women and have small penises.

And you're lecturing THEM about tolerance, equality and American values? LOL.

You don't have to like Trump. I certainly don't agree with everything Trump says or does. But millions of Americans voted for him for all kinds of reasons i.e. immigration, taxes, the economy, regulation, foreign policy, judges, guns, abortion or simply because they preferred him to the alternative.

Disagree with them all you want. That's politics.

But reducing millions of people you don't know to "deplorables" and attacking their intelligence, bodies, income and sex lives tells us a lot more about the level of this argument than it does about the people you're attacking.

13 hours ago, BerndD said:

Hitler did something similar. In the German Reichstag, all opposing members of parliament were arrested and taken to concentration camps, so that he had a free hand to pursue his political goals.
Then the disaster took its proper course.
Everything points in this direction in the USA.

Seriously? Now we're comparing Trump to Hitler arresting members of parliament and putting them in concentration camps?

Let's look at what actually happened in Germany. Hitler's government arrested or prevented opposition members of the Reichstag from taking their seats. Communists and Social Democrats were detained, intimidated or forced into hiding, helping Hitler get the votes he needed for the Enabling Act and essentially eliminate parliamentary opposition.

So tell me: where is the American equivalent?

Which Democratic senators and representatives has Trump rounded up and put in prison or detention camps so they can't vote against his legislation?

Which opposition party has Trump outlawed?

Which members of Congress have been removed so Trump can pass laws without opposition?

Which elections has Trump canceled?

There have certainly been investigations and prosecutions involving Trump opponents, and we can debate individually whether any of those are justified or politically motivated. But that's a LONG way from Hitler physically eliminating the parliamentary opposition and establishing a dictatorship.

Saying "everything points in this direction" doesn't make it true. If you're going to compare what's happening in America to Hitler's destruction of the German parliament, show us the comparable actions.

Otherwise, we're back to the same thing we've been doing throughout this discussion: predicting the worst possible thing Trump might someday do and then criticizing him as though he's already done it.

21 hours ago, Wingate said:

Yes..."Show me your pay-peeerz!"

I feel offended when asked for my papers upon reentering the country. There should be no borders; we need open borders now!

8 hours ago, ericthai said:

Okay, now at least you've provided some examples, so we have something specific to discuss.

But I'm still trying to understand how you're defining "cheating."

Trump's casino companies went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That's true. Creditors lost money and some contractors didn't receive everything they were owed. That's certainly fair game for criticizing Trump's business record.

But bankruptcy isn't "cheating." Chapter 11 is a legal process specifically designed to allow a company to restructure debts it can't pay. Creditors frequently accept less than the original amount owed. You may not like that system, but thousands of American companies have used it.

The same applies to disputed contractor bills. If Trump contracted for $500,000 worth of work, received the work, had the money and simply refused to pay because he knew the little guy couldn't fight him, I'd certainly call that unethical. If there was intentional deception involved, then show me that and I'll call it cheating.

But simply saying "contractors weren't paid in full" doesn't tell us why. Was the bill disputed? Was the work disputed? Was it part of a bankruptcy? Was there a settlement? Was there a court judgment finding fraud? Those details matter.

And the article you posted isn't exactly neutral reporting. It's a union advocacy piece using phrases like "rape-and-pillage" and "made out like a bandit." Fine, but rhetoric isn't evidence of fraud.

So we've gone from your original claim that Trump has spent his entire life "cheating" to examples of corporate bankruptcies, creditors taking losses and business/payment disputes.

You can absolutely argue those things make Trump a ruthless businessman or that you don't like the way he conducted business. That's you're opinion.

But if your claim is that he was actually CHEATING people, then identify the specific deception or fraud.

A business failure, bankruptcy or disputed bill isn't automatically cheating.

Wow. Just wow. I've always heard it said that a reasonably powerful intellect can come up with 101 ways to justify any position, but defending stealing from small contractors is just a step too far. I don't need to cite the examples they're all out there on the public record, do some research for God's sake.

9 hours ago, ericthai said:

Seriously? Now we're comparing Trump to Hitler arresting members of parliament and putting them in concentration camps?

Let's look at what actually happened in Germany. Hitler's government arrested or prevented opposition members of the Reichstag from taking their seats. Communists and Social Democrats were detained, intimidated or forced into hiding, helping Hitler get the votes he needed for the Enabling Act and essentially eliminate parliamentary opposition.

So tell me: where is the American equivalent?

Which Democratic senators and representatives has Trump rounded up and put in prison or detention camps so they can't vote against his legislation?

Which opposition party has Trump outlawed?

Which members of Congress have been removed so Trump can pass laws without opposition?

Which elections has Trump canceled?

There have certainly been investigations and prosecutions involving Trump opponents, and we can debate individually whether any of those are justified or politically motivated. But that's a LONG way from Hitler physically eliminating the parliamentary opposition and establishing a dictatorship.

Saying "everything points in this direction" doesn't make it true. If you're going to compare what's happening in America to Hitler's destruction of the German parliament, show us the comparable actions.

Otherwise, we're back to the same thing we've been doing throughout this discussion: predicting the worst possible thing Trump might someday do and then criticizing him as though he's already done it.

Trump is trying to defame all of his opponents, especially political ones, and to sue them with lawsuits and lawsuits, and his compliant judiciary and his equally submissive justice minister are supporting him in this.

The USA is on the way, like Germany back then, the concentration camps will come, albeit in a different form, if Trump and his corrupt baggage are not put to an end in a democratic way by the voters. But here he and his 'lawyers' are trying to gain advantages through changes to the electoral law in order to influence the election in his favor. Under Trump, the USA is moving towards a totalitarian state, while at the same time respect and trust are declining worldwide.

15 hours ago, ericthai said:

Okay, now at least you've provided some examples, so we have something specific to discuss.

But I'm still trying to understand how you're defining "cheating."

Trump's casino companies went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That's true. Creditors lost money and some contractors didn't receive everything they were owed. That's certainly fair game for criticizing Trump's business record.

But bankruptcy isn't "cheating." Chapter 11 is a legal process specifically designed to allow a company to restructure debts it can't pay. Creditors frequently accept less than the original amount owed. You may not like that system, but thousands of American companies have used it.

The same applies to disputed contractor bills. If Trump contracted for $500,000 worth of work, received the work, had the money and simply refused to pay because he knew the little guy couldn't fight him, I'd certainly call that unethical. If there was intentional deception involved, then show me that and I'll call it cheating.

But simply saying "contractors weren't paid in full" doesn't tell us why. Was the bill disputed? Was the work disputed? Was it part of a bankruptcy? Was there a settlement? Was there a court judgment finding fraud? Those details matter.

And the article you posted isn't exactly neutral reporting. It's a union advocacy piece using phrases like "rape-and-pillage" and "made out like a bandit." Fine, but rhetoric isn't evidence of fraud.

So we've gone from your original claim that Trump has spent his entire life "cheating" to examples of corporate bankruptcies, creditors taking losses and business/payment disputes.

You can absolutely argue those things make Trump a ruthless businessman or that you don't like the way he conducted business. That's you're opinion.

But if your claim is that he was actually CHEATING people, then identify the specific deception or fraud.

A business failure, bankruptcy or disputed bill isn't automatically cheating.

Schrödinger’s sophistry: cheating both denied and defended.
A cult sermon on legal ethics while seemingly ignoring proven fraudulent conduct in the felon misleader’s court case after case.
A quantum leap of logic — innocence and guilt, simultaneously coexisting depending on the viewer.

On 8/24/2026 at 12:26 AM, impulse said:

I'd pay cash money to watch the Dems and lefties react to that one.

I mean, if you're not breaking the law, why would you worry?

Well there have been cases of ICE agents threatening and pointing guns at US citizens who hadn't committed a crime, but they only shot a few of them. So why worry?

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Well there have been cases of ICE agents threatening and pointing guns at US citizens who hadn't committed a crime, but they only shot a few of them. So why worry?

Show me one and I'll bet that it's a purple haired cat lady with a septum ring who's deliberately trying to elicit a response like that. Of the hundreds of videos I've watched, the ICE agents have shown a lot more restraint than I would to someone who's in my face and even spitting on me.

Voters who don't deliberately antagonize them have will have nothing to fear.

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

Show me one and I'll bet that it's a purple haired cat lady with a septum ring who's deliberately trying to elicit a response like that. Of the hundreds of videos I've watched, the ICE agents have shown a lot more restraint than I would to someone who's in my face and even spitting on me.

Voters who don't deliberately antagonize them have will have nothing to fear.

You would have to brave, mental or both, to spit in the face of law enforcement........you could get up to eight years.

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

Show me one and I'll bet that it's a purple haired cat lady with a septum ring who's deliberately trying to elicit a response like that. Of the hundreds of videos I've watched, the ICE agents have shown a lot more restraint than I would to someone who's in my face and even spitting on me.

Voters who don't deliberately antagonize them have will have nothing to fear.

This is the most recent example I've found: https://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-ice-agent-pointing-gun-at-us-citizen-in-virginia-falls-church-12312508

Regarding the "antagonize" justification; do you think the Capital Police should have shot some of the Jan 6 insurrectionists? What they did looked pretty antagonistic to me.

On 8/23/2026 at 9:44 PM, tomazbodner said:

Hasn't he been undermining the confidence in elections since 2020? But, if elections are so unreliable, and none of the rules he wants to change have yet been changed, then how do we know that he actually won the 2016 and 2024 elections?

Normally, when there's a doubt in something, it gets repeated. Why not repeat presidential elections to put this to rest? If he's as popular as he claims, he'll win in a landslide.

"Hasn't he been undermining the confidence in elections since 2020?"

No! He's been undermining confidence in elections since 2016, if not earlier.

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

This is the most recent example I've found: https://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-ice-agent-pointing-gun-at-us-citizen-in-virginia-falls-church-12312508

Regarding the "antagonize" justification; do you think the Capital Police should have shot some of the Jan 6 insurrectionists? What they did looked pretty antagonistic to me.

On a per day basis, the Capitol police shot about 100x as many unarmed protestors as ICE ever has.

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

On a per day basis, the Capitol police shot about 100x as many unarmed protestors as ICE ever has.

Please provide a source for that nonsense.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Please provide a source for that nonsense.

In a few hours on just one afternoon, Capitol police shot unarmed Ashli Babbit to death and beat Roseanne Boyland to death.

In the 584 days since Trump's inauguration, how many unarmed citizens has ICE shot?

If it's less than 6, my statement is true. The capital police shot over 100x as many per day.

And, I'd add... There was absolutely no outrage on the left when Ashli Babbit was shot. Contrast that to the hissy fits they threw when Good and Pretti were shot while resisting and (in Good's case), trying to run them down. And the very few others...

When you count, don't count the armed ones. Like Good and Pretti.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by impulse

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

This is the most recent example I've found: https://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-ice-agent-pointing-gun-at-us-citizen-in-virginia-falls-church-12312508

Regarding the "antagonize" justification; do you think the Capital Police should have shot some of the Jan 6 insurrectionists? What they did looked pretty antagonistic to me.

Yeah. That's the MSM for you.

Personally, I prefer to watch the freelance FAFO YouTubes showing the purple hair idiots in their glory, getting owned by their own actions. They seem to think they can attack and spit on cops and ICE agents and there will be no consequences. Some of the videos are hilarious. But I'll let you do your own search.

Back to the OP, if legal voters don't antagonize ICE at the polls, they have nothing to worry about. If they're illegal, or bent on disrupting ICE, they should worry, and that's a good thing.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

In a few hours on just one afternoon, Capitol police shot unarmed Ashli Babbit to death and beat Roseanne Boyland to death.

In the 584 days since Trump's inauguration, how many unarmed citizens has ICE shot?

If it's less than 6, my statement is true. The capital police shot over 100x as many per day.

And, I'd add... There was absolutely no outrage on the left when Ashli Babbit was shot. Contrast that to the hissy fits they threw when Good and Pretti were shot while resisting and (in Good's case), trying to run them down. And the very few others...

When you count, don't count the armed ones. Like Good and Pretti.

Roseanne Boyland died of an amphetamine overdose. https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-9446745/MAGA-rioter-34-trampled-Capitol-mob-actually-died-acute-amphetamine-intoxication.html

A doctored video that supposedly showed her being beaten was a fake. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-there-new-footage-showing-police-beating-rioter-rosanne-boyland-1653492

Ashli Babbit was illegally in the Capitol building, ignored repeated warnings to back off while trying to enter the House Chamber while Representatives and staff were being evacuated, and shot after ignoring these warnings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt

In which of the many ICE shootings were ICE agents being attacked? Not by a slow moving car trying to leave the area, but attacked by people smashing windows and aggressively going after the agents?

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Yeah. That's the MSM for you.

Personally, I prefer to watch the freelance FAFO YouTubes showing the purple hair idiots in their glory, getting owned by their own actions. They seem to think they can attack and spit on cops and ICE agents and there will be no consequences. Some of the videos are hilarious. But I'll let you do your own search.

Back to the OP, if legal voters don't antagonize ICE at the polls, they have nothing to worry about. If they're illegal, or bent on disrupting ICE, they should worry, and that's a good thing.

Yeah, who needs boring MSM reporting verifiable facts. YouTube and social media, the natural hang-outs of fraudsters, propagandists and conspiracy theorists, are much more entertaining.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Yeah, who needs boring MSM reporting verifiable facts. YouTube and social media, the natural hang-outs of fraudsters, propagandists and conspiracy theorists, are much more entertaining.

You mean like "Biden is fit as a fiddle"? Or, "The laptop is Russian disinformation? Or, "Get your jab so you don't kill grandma"?

And still, you hold out their so called "fact checks" as if they have any credibility at all?

Don't even get me started on all the Wikipedia garbage that people also trust as if it's not planted.

Edit: BTW, Sir George died of a fentanyl overdose. Just like Rosanne Boyland died of a speed overdose.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by impulse

All this will end up in a sort of live setting of "The Handmaid's Tale"...

12 hours ago, impulse said:

You mean like "Biden is fit as a fiddle"? Or, "The laptop is Russian disinformation? Or, "Get your jab so you don't kill grandma"?

And still, you hold out their so called "fact checks" as if they have any credibility at all?

Don't even get me started on all the Wikipedia garbage that people also trust as if it's not planted.

Edit: BTW, Sir George died of a fentanyl overdose. Just like Rosanne Boyland died of a speed overdose.

Reporting what administration officials say is news. Fact checking is what real journalists do. Putting things in context is what MSM does. For example, an group of experts with impressive intelligence experience stated that the circumstances surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. How was that incorrect? Do you know how to recognize Russian disinformation?

The alternative to fact checking is believing whatever lies or fantasies appeal to you. Is that what you do?

Please, get started on Wikipedia. You can start by showing how the entry on the Ashli Babbit shooting.

If you want something easier, you can fact check Trump's claim that water destroys magnets.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

For example, an group of experts with impressive intelligence experience stated that the circumstances surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. How was that incorrect? Do you know how to recognize Russian disinformation?

Seriously? They all knew that the laptop was Hunter's. The FBI had it for months and months. They used that wording specifically to avoid being prosecuted for perjury. The MSM knew it was a lie. The MSM went along with the lie, in an election year. To defeat Trump.

And lefties bought it. Hook, line and sinker.