It's amazing that we've known The whole story and how the Clinton campaign orchestrated all this for years, and now that we are finally getting a SINGLE person held accountable, Dems don't/won't care.
They rallied on this 24/7 for at least 3 years straight. They impeached Trump over it.
I'd like to settle for nothing less than the total destruction of the Democrat Party.
It can be replaced with the Republican Party, which also needs to be destroyed and replaced with the MAGA Party.
Edit: Obligatory shout out to the Fraud known as Evolution. The earth is not Billions of years old. Humans are not Millions of years old. We did not come from Apes. We did not come from rocks and puddles.
I'm sorry, there are zettabytes of data from astrophysics that prove beyond any doubt that your obligatory shout out against evolution is, simply, preposterous.
Be like me. See the reality around you... You can still believe in a higher power. You can still believe someone or something had to create all of this.
But understand, we have perfect understanding of how complex elements are forged in stars and we know it took this process about 8 billion years to give us the materials we have around us today -- but that this overall process began around 13.8 billion years ago.
We have telescopes that can see back billions of years to show us these processes at work.
Here on Earth? Geologists working with biologists can show us how prior life forms on this planet lived and died in the seas leaving strata of iron and oil and other compounds and elements and molecules we find today.
This took billions of years. We can measure it precisely. We can observe the past which to our eyes is happening today -- so we see these precise forces in action.
I'm pretty sure the origin of "dark matter" was modelers finding that if they just tweaked the model to add a bit more mass, it more closely resembled reality.
The model being wrong in some subtle way is discussed, but the mainstream scientific opinion is still ghost particles that don't interact in any way other than donating the mass needed to make the model work. At least people are allowed to criticize dark matter without being censored or committing career suicide, unlike questioning the models that say CO2 is causing global warming.
I think this stuff bothers me because I like models, they're very useful when you want to analyze something you already know a lot about and has fairly narrow bounds. Electronics, fluidics, thermodynamics, stress, physics...models are great. Not perfect but extremely useful.
In terms of discovering new things in widely bounded systems though, it seems to easily lead to chasing ghosts in the model...or simply solving for whatever gets you more grant money.
The thing about dark matter, and why criticism of it is misguided, is that dark matter is also an admission that our models are wrong. It's just that, on balance given all the evidence, the vast majority of physicists believe it's more likely that our models of particle physics are wrong than that our models of gravity are wrong. Dark matter is actually quite parsimonious: you assume some of it and you get large scale structure, the right CMB spectrum, and you get the galactic rotation curves that were the original motivation.
No other competitor comes close to this explanatory power, and they all tie themselves into knots trying to explain the bullet cluster or darkmatterless galaxies like NGC 1052-DF2. That's the kicker: there are places in the universe where we see baryonic matter but no dark matter. That's pretty much a smoking gun. Proponents of one of the most famous competitors to dark matter models, MOND, essentially resigned themselves to the fact that some dark matter must exist, they just think it's in a lesser amount than most other physicists assume.
It may be disappointing that certain properties of the universe that we might've supposed calculable can only be measured. But it's not up to us. We get the universe that's out there, not the one that would satisfy our aesthetic preconceptions.
There's lot of assumptions about how the universe works at large scales built into not only our theories, but also into our measurements. I'll believe in dark matter when someone actually measures it.
Dark matter is the fuel that expands the universe obviously there is something beyond the bound of space that we don't have the technology to see or understand. Breaching the solar system than the galaxy is the only way to truly start to understand what really is empty space.
Yes. We are still missing a piece of the puzzle with quantifying all of the forces. Just more recently, we started looking at gravity as not a force, but rather a reaction to the bending of space-time...
That the universe is expanding is also another inference accepted as fact derived from redshift.
obviously there is something beyond the bound of space that we don't have the technology to see or understand
"obviously"? I think what may or may not exist outside the universe, or even if "existence" is meaningful in such a place, is one of the over all least obvious things.
Breaching the solar system than the galaxy is the only way to truly start to understand what really is empty space.
Sure, I'm all for space exploration and instrumentation.
Nah fusion is simple. We get what is happening in the sun. We just canāt control it yet. Simple physics, vastly complicated engineering.
Cosmology is not even a science yet in my book, but physics is well established. Biology is still a dark art of economic conquest without much science really being done either.
You said perfect and perfect is a very high bar. There's plenty of things in the domains you listed we don't fully understand, there's "open problems" in every field.
we have understanding enough.
"Understanding enough" to do something useful can be really far from perfect understanding. Plenty of drugs are not well understood, but we still make them and hand them out like candy.
So don't sweat it the next time you get on a plane. No worries, the aeronautical guys know their stuff too -- just enough I guess.
This is absolutely hilarious given how many lives and how many dollars were spent in aviation getting to the point of understanding we have now. When we started building jets we didn't even understand basic shit like stress risers around tight bends (DeHaviland Comet windows). It really is an ever-increasing, asymptotic, "just enough". Open problem now: software validation, so the 737-MAX crashes don't happen again.
Their persistence and insidiousness made biologists take seriously the notion that they need to show their work.
I learned a shitload about biology because of Creationists, and inasmuch as I understand evolution, itās because it has held up to ambitious and sincere scrutiny. It might be one of the few things I can genuinely believe inā¦ if thereās no one seriously challenging some idea, then how do I know it stacks up?
This debate is what introduced me to serious thinking about epistemology, which is the same reason I donāt trust the āexpertsā on masks and gene juice.
Astrophysics explanation for age of the universe is solid, but macro evolution has no legs to stand on. The jumps are just too big, the leaps in the fossil record so incredibly far from quantum that the faith needed to believe evolution after seeing the evidence is incredible.
There are billions of fossils, allegedly over billions of years, yet across the board the fossil record takes massive jumps. We also have never seen complex organs added, and logic would seem to make such a jump impossible to happen slowly. Mutations are generally cancerous, and to get the dozens to hundreds of mutations needed to create an entirely new, complex organ to form, it just doesn't make sense. Pointing to an animal getting smaller or bigger when isolated on an island is very very different from the kind of changes needed for this to happen. Big faith needed to believe in magical appearing complex organs.
Yes, it's the same arguements creationists always make, but it is because there aren't actually any good, logical answers. It is always appeal to authority, or ad hominem, or a red herring, or a strawman.
I have a different take from my experience looking into it.
The diversity of life exists in a nested hierarchy of traits, whether you look at genetic features or physical features. E.g., if you know that an animal makes milk, you instantly know a lot of other things about it too (bilateral symmetry, hair, eyes, etc.). Common descent is a powerful explanation for this feature, and it isnāt inconsistent with other things we have good reason to believe are true of the universe, and it has been remarkably consistent with discoveries made since its proposal (e.g. genetic evidence).
Fossils are extremely rare. We have a lot of them because life is so prolific, but it is not common that something dies and gets fossilized, and there are periods of time that were dominated by lifeforms that were easier/harder to fossilize. The fossil record could only ever be incomplete, but in it we can see examples of the transitions of different features within the nested hierarchy.
I canāt buy an argument from incredulity (there isnāt enough time or the changes are too big); what is being demanded is an explanation for something very big, and I find evolution to be very satisfying for how well something so simple fits with something so big.
I donāt fault you for finding it hard to accept; it demands that you accept that differences of degree and clear categorical differences are manifestations of the same thing. Speciation is the summation of a great many differences of degree; in retrospect, you can draw a categorical difference, but at no point along the ancestry does it clearly move from one category to the other.
This is a feature of the universe that is hard to grapple with because we generally cope with complexity by drawing clear distinctions between things. This difficulty is the same reason why Leftists are so effective at confusing people with marginal example cases that are far removed from our experience (like abortion being justified by rape, as if evil justifies more evil. Or XXY syndrome invalidating the gender binary). A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. The existence of even egregious abnormalities does not invalidate sexual dimorphism as a useful model of reality. Leftists are obsessed with erasing distinctions, and thatās destroying civilization. You may even be justified if you want to give evolution theory some of the blame. But MY takeaway from it is that clear categories can be valid and useful models, even if things get really mushy very close to the dividing line and very far from the dividing line. To me, thatās the nature of reality and our brainās relationship with it. This all might seem very tangential, but thatās how evolution has informed my ātheory of knowledge,ā and why I generally believe in the Conservative narrative despite all the āyeah butās that people want to conjure in opposition to the nature of nature.
I still think it dances away from the most difficult ideas, like life coming from inanimate materials, or invertebrates somehow getting a skeleton piecemeal, or 1000 other jumps that really must be explained, especially in light of all we know now about the complexities of such biological systems. These are not trivial matters, they are the foundation of the entire system Darwin hypothesized about. The book, after all, is called the Origin of Species, not the Similarities of Species.
It is like a Christian running away from the resurrection of Christ: the entire belief system is a joke if this issue is not addressed; as Paul the Apostle said, if Christ isn't risen from the dead, Christians are to be most pitied. Similarly, if the key points of Darwinism are not defended, why bother with ancillary points?
Evolution makes no attempt to explain the existence of life; evolution explains the diversity of life.
Evolutionary biologists donāt shrink away from the things you are hoping for it to explain regarding the origin of species. Bones from not-bones is just subtle differences in the composition of connective tissue, tuned over many many generations.
Itās not like there was a sack of skin and it happened to need bones but just hadnāt evolved them yet. There would have been structural tissue that was not as hard as bone, and its composition changed over time. Incremental changes in myriad directions through mutation, filtered through natural selection, creates the appearance of a directed process.
You might say that bones are special because of their intricate interconnectedness, but skin is just as special if you drill down into it. I donāt have a hard time imagining how these duplications of preexisting structures could then be independently tuned to have increasing specialization. Your fingers and toes are all variations on the same motif. Bone, cartilage, and tendon are similarly variations on the same motif.
I have the same problem with evolution. Like you said, the number of mutations that would have to occur to turn a microorganism into something like a squirrel far exceeds the short timeline, especially considering, as you said before, that most mutations are cancerous. Now if we were talking about a timeline of 50 - 100 billion years of mutations, then that would hold more water. Assuming your sun would last that long. :p
If in the year of our lord current year you're still uncritically parroting the irreducible complexity argument even as it's been carefully debunked multiple times, you have nobody but yourself to blame.
for just one example that is not at al appeal to authority, or ad hominem, or red herring, or strawman. Just a straightforward explanation of how the thing you assert can't happen, happens.
Lol you site Wikipedia as a scholastic pub? And irreducible complexity has not been debunked at all! It has stired up another science as chemical evolution. No matter if you put a thousand monkeys in a room with their own typewriters that they bang on all day, the complete work of Shakespeare will never be churned out. No matter how long you give them! This is abstract irreducible complexity.
Wikipedia is a rag. But it's easy way to cite a summary from a bunch of sources, because like it or not this is not controversial stuff in the slightest. It's not even complicated stuff. It's just something that creationists are willfully ignorant about.
Evolution has been absolutely destroyed by biologists and geneticists. It's starting to get begrudgingly admitted by even die hard evolutionists that the theory has failed. The new theory is that "aliens" helped it along and added information to genetic codes to create new species. I know this will open a can of worms so I'm not getting into this conversation anymore, but evolution is retarded.
I learned more about evolution, and science generally, by trying to disprove it than I ever learned from simply passively memorizing information about it.
Yeah, it's my knowledge of basic physics that made me cringe DECADES AGO when so many Asian populations started wearing those crummy cloth masks to guard against SARS and pollution. I realize they were living in some crappy conditions. But I knew full well that shitty mask was accomplishing nothing. The evil spirts they were trying to ward off were microscopic. Those masks were useless. But their following across Asia became cult like -- a religion.
So just imagine my reaction -- no doubt yours too -- when they became a thing here. Being forced to wear a mask in order to buy groceries or liquor was, for me, a humiliation; a subjugation. I absolutely, positively understand the physics here and I know: this does nothing but pound a wedge between me and my fellow humanorwomanity.
But no mask? No service. (And the mask worshippers never once backed down! Not once did I get a cashier to complete the deal unless I was masked--and believe me, I tried two dozen times.)
Youāre data is based on historical data being true which you cannot prove. They are rewriting history before our eyes as we live and record it, how do you think it was 100 years ago, 1000?
There is no proof of evolution, itās all theory and modeling. We are not evolved from our fellow humans thousands of years ago , we are not smarter.
The problem is we are good at destroying ourselves and documents. There is much more evidence for young earth now that we know history is all likely false.
Hell, Roman Empire could have been 500 years ago, but we would never really know
The notion that an appendix is a vestigial organ has been thoroughly debunked. Can you live without it? Yes, but it still has functions, chiefly the preservation of gut bacteria.
Evolutionists looked at the appendix decades ago, couldn't figure out what it was for, then assumed it had no purpose to shoehorn it into their evolutionary model. Shows you just how arrogant and biased such "scientists" are.
So you say they were wrong about their medical hypothesis about this particular organ. That's how it works, you have to take for granted that people are wrong more often than right.
Exadaptation has many examples. The language of "purpose" or an organ "for something" is really quite imprecise. It's not easy to reformulate it in physical terms, which is why it took white men to systematize the concept of evolutionary variation.
Itās not a matter of being wrong about a medical diagnosis, itās a matter of assuming that an organ is vestigial without proof just because their theory predicts the existence of vestigial organs. Itās a matter of letting oneās worldview cloud their judgement such that they reinterpret and warp evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around. There are many more such examples of this: Piltdown Man, Lucy, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, and others. Every single one of those instances involves an evolutionist twisting data to fit his theory, which is bad science.
Also, the term āpurposeā isnāt imprecise, it just doesnāt fit your evolutionary framework. Those are not the same.
As for your comments on white men, this is The Donald community, not the Daily Stormer. Then again, Iām not shocked in the slightest that a proponent of evolution is a white supremacist pos.
So you're not even going to try to address my argument. Nice.
Current models of the Flood indicate that Earth's radioactive elements, including carbon-14 and potassium-40, were generated during the Flood, and that this radioactivity is responsible for the gradual corruption of DNA. This results in genetic abnormalities and premature aging. See this link for the details:
Therefore before the Flood, human DNA was nearly perfect and substantially less susceptible to genetic abnormalities, which allowed Adam and Eve's children to procreate without worrying about defects. (spoiler alert: mitochondrial Eve and ancestral Adam have already been found, so don't try and tell me that Adam and Eve don't exist).
Note that the Old Testament ban on incest happens centuries after the Flood, which is precisely when genetic degradation would have been sufficient to make such practices dangerous.
Finally, due to genetic entropy, the people living before the Flood would have had far greater genetic diversity than post Flood humanity, which also would have allowed more closely related individuals to procreate without the defects seen today.
In summary, incest was a temporary measure that was feasible due to greater genetic diversity and lack of DNA corruption by radioactive decay. The Flood created both a genetic bottleneck and radioactivity that is slowly corrupting our DNA, which is why God banned the practice after the Flood during the Bronze Age.
Where did all the new information come from in DNA? Why is it no where else in the universe does new information spring into existence? There's greater odds that a typewriter factory exploding would create a perfect 20 volume encyclopedia. The number of zeros you would need to represent such odds after the decimal point is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
There is a difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution, aka natural selection, is a directly observable phenomenon that not even creation scientists dispute. However, it has only ever been observed to result in small changes within a species, and has never been observed to result in one species transitioning to another, which is macro evolution. Furthermore, it would be impossible for simpler forms of life to evolve into more complex ones, as that would require a natural process to decrease entropy, which violates the laws of thermodynamics.
The very term natural selection implies selecting from genetic information that already exists, not the spontaneous generation of new genetic material. The only known way to get new genetic material is via mutation, and not a single mutation has ever been demonstrated to be beneficial, despite scientists artificially inducing mutations in thousands of generations of fruit flies.
Lastly, any time environmental pressures force an organism to āadaptā by expressing already present genes, only organisms who express genes appropriate to the environment survive, and the rest die out. This results in a net decrease of biodiversity. Natural selection actually prohibits macro evolution by continuously trimming away the quantity and quality of genes present in any organisms gene pool, with no known mechanism of providing new genetic information thatās actually beneficial.
Lol...the finches have been proven not to be evolution at all. Modern studies have proven that the beak differences are environmental gene expression. The beaks are because of cyclical diets and when food is scarce. Their beaks are more akin to a calloused hand and not evolution.... man all this is out their but you are unaware of it. This demonstrates that you are disingenous and have conducted no due diligence...you have bought into evolution fairytale!
If the story of Genesis was true, and what you said was also true (that evolution is the mechanism by which species evolve), then what would the answer be?
I often wonder why we try to answer first century questions with seventeenth century answers.
The Flood triggered an ice age that resulted in lower sea levels for several centuries, allowing the migration of humans and animals to every continent. Plus humans had the ability to build boats at the time, which is how they and other animals would have made it to more remote islands.
One hundred years after the Flood is called Peleg in the bible and that means the day the earth split apart. The Bible alludes to a Pangeatic super continent, plate tectonics, and Continental drift. Drift was very rapid at first and has slowed over time. In fact of b the earth was billions of years old then the continents would have broken up, separated, drifted, and merge d together again and we would have become again pangea.. all this proves a young Earth and evolution pseudo science is fatally flawed!
The 1000-year-old and older Roman buildings are standing all around me in my city, and are visible outside my very window as I type this, you cretinous subhuman redneck. :D
I'm not disputing the age of the Roman ruins, but seriously...how do any of us know anything really? Because of what we were told by "experts" who lie about every single fucking thing they are paid to lie about?
Unless you are the dude in the lab doing the radio-carbon dating, how do you know the actual result? Even if it is, did you gather the sample too? Are the instruments accurate? How do you know, did you build the instrument?
Here's a stat for you...98.7 percent of scientists agree...with whoever provides their funding. Is that true? Maybe...I just made it up. Could be higher. But all I need to do is bribe...excuse me, fund via grant...a group of scientists to sign a letter saying "98.7 percent of sceitists agree..." and boom, I've created settled science! Disagree? Well, you must be a white supremicist. And since you are obviously a racist, your opinion doesn't matter, subhuman redneck.
This is precisely why evolution has taken over academia. If any scientist dares advocate for an alternative explanation, their funding is cut and theyāre ostracized from the āscientific communityā
Even doing the carbon dating, youāre basing your science on The Expert. Lol at what that means anymore . All science imo is almost disproven at this point. We need to start again .
They broke science or else maybe it never really existed in the first place
There's a lot more to dating than radioactive signatures, a lot of it is just layers and context. If you're on a site and you find a Roman coin in proximity to other artifacts, you can usually pin that coin down to the span of an Emperor. From there you can make the completely reasonable assumption that most anything else on that site at around the same depth, as long as it doesn't appear disturbed, is from that approximate era.
This is why archaeologists get super SUPER asshurt about treasure hunters, it breaks the order of the layers and they can't recover that information.
I have no argument with anything you just said. My concern, I guess, is the complete politicization of science. It seems unlikely to me that an archaeologist would fake results for a political agenda, then again...
within the last year or so I remember reading a story about a viking burial where they tested DNA from the dig and decided that the person buried there must have been a female warrior chieftan of some sort. Now, obviously I must be a bigot to question that in the era of shield walls, spears and axes that a womyn could not possibly be strong enough to match men of the era, but so be it. It also occurs to me that reputedly female slaves would sometimes be buried with male viking chieftans, and maybe whatever DNA sample they had, came from a slave. But the article was insistent, the subject in the burial had to be female, although apparently not enough of the bone structure (pelvis) remained to prove it. Since the science was now settled, anyone daring to question the conclusion would be proclaimed a racist/homophobe/misogynist/xenophobe.
Once upon a time it was reasonable, or at least so it seemed, to believe experts and scientists because there were ethics and standards and stuff...Now there is only the narrative, dictated by those who pay the bills. Facts that support the narrative are valid. Facts that do not support the narrative are racist and must be ignored or more likely, suppressed. See also global cooling/global warming/climate change.
So I'm not a science denier, I just don't trust the people doing the science.
Even the coins are based on some accurate dating of history through books, which are NOt primary sources which are missing. And the secondary are controlled by the Vatican
Math is the issue. Some atheist (ironically) mathematicians studied the Cambrian explosion and, to make a very long story short, developed a mathematical proof that evolution could not be the source for the massive number of species that arose during that period.
O so it must be true LOL!! Damn man are you that blind to your own plagiarized quote? Do you hear yourself? Ok I will speak slowly.... Food also must evolve just like species so magically all at once at least one sentient life for evolved at the same time in unrelated news, vegetation decided to evolve. The Universe is not large enough according to the believed rate of expansion that is measurable today. For one to evolve the universe is arguably not large enough, Now two at the same time that is impossible!
Go back to your drawing board and give it another go. I tell you, Evolution is a race horse that refuses to run when the gates are opened. It fails in the first very basic logical assumptions that an honest person seeks to answer.
Negatory even more easy to debunk pseudo science. Go study chromosomes or do you believe a human can screw a dog and produce offspring? With out the exact count (Humans = 23 X 2) to life forms cannot reproduce. you may believe a mule is like a ring species, but you would be wrong unless you see devolution as positive evolution. Mule are products female horses and donkeys for the most part they cannot reproduce but sometimes the do. But the resulting mule is sterile and cannot reproduce The same is true in certain down-syndrome; sterile as well because they lack a chromosome.
You cannot have an argument about this when you observe negative mutations. Being that only negative mutations have ever been never a positive mutation. And Nature deals harshly with these negative mutations by sterilization or even DNA Corrective measures.
How come to you zealots never know these things? They are out there for all to see and study, yet you blissfully walk around blindfolder parroting something a professor theorizes because you are to lazy to test the argument?
The puritan evangelical retards downvoting you are the reason we are losing. God is indeed real, but we donāt give Him enough credit and we restrict his miracles to near stupid levels of human understanding.
His time is not ours. Whatever actual truth exists will point to our creator.
I have no doubt in the overarching theme which He has handed down. There is plenty of room for unexpected curve balls. Has mankind gone through numerous iterations? Maybe. Has God allowed mankind to progress repeatedly before, only to knock him back down to zero when he attempts to reach roo high? Perhaps.
I see no conflict between history and Christianity.
Unfortunately, I believe you are incorrect on the evolution point. It is very clear that some humans did evolve from rocks, the democrat liberals currently inhabiting the planet share the same brain as their rock ancestors.
Why would the dems suddenly care? Where in their behavior does that happen? We need to be talking to disaffected democrats and liberals. That would be men and women who hold positions similar to other disaffected democrats and liberals. Two examples of these would be:
President Donald J. Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
My original hope was that Democrats would be fully and undoubtedly exposed as a criminally corrupt organization that was 100% responsible for RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
My hope was that it would be so obvious that they were responsible for the criminal act, that normies would understand and comprehend, and the Democrat Party would implode and be destroyed.
Some will but the DNC is synonymous with Disney and AT&T. They are the same institution. It won't attack itself unless it is an advantage to pretend to do so. The voices and those disaffected are squelched or censored, shadow banned, etc.
That's who we need to reach. Before they funnel them to some fake populist like Sanders.
Gee I canāt understand why they believe this considering that they heard it from fake news nonstop 24/7 for fucking years and theyāre STILL reporting that it happened
The interesting thing is that Dems know better than anybody else that it was them that colluded with Russia. They know everything is projection. They applaud it. Itās one of their weapons and tactics
That's what happens when you don't have a fair and honest media. What we have is a propaganda arm of the deep state. Yeah there's a lot of dumb/asleep people but the MSM exasperates the problem tremendously.
Elon is launching rockets into space. He has a higher "need to know" priority than anyone in Clinton's sphere right now. He is integrated into Space Force and milintel because of his work.
Clinton, as scary as she may be, is completely outclassed by this man as a civilian. Never mind that Elon has the keys to a geopositioned satellite over her head at this very moment. Meanwhile Clinton is visibly guilty of treason and has a huge liability cloud surrounding herself and everyone who funneled money through the Clinton Foundation.
If you were a spook, who's side would you want to be on? The guy launching spacecraft or the woman accused of treason who has been made politically irrelevant as well as toxic?
He is only conservative compared to lunatic leftists and fringey liberals of today. By the standards of 20-40 years ago, he is still a leftist moderate ecconomy-oriented democrat. It's just that the democrat party has pulled so far to the left and globalist that he looks conservative now to young people today.
Also just to be clear, being left and liberal are not in fact synonymous. Nor is right and conservative. That is a framing trick politicians have used to oversimplify the tribalistic patterns of stupid people incapable of nuance to make them easier to control.
Trump's policy has absolutely shifted I'm sure, he's been alive a long time, and with age people often get more conservative.
But he is not really a traditional conservative, nor a right winger.
He is a nuanced America first populist, which is something most conservatives identify as. So there is a lot of overlap.
By my standards (right-wing libertarian) he still favors a bigger centralized government than I want and thus closer to a leftist by a large margin.
Socially speaking, taking into account both his public opinion and personal habits, he is closer to what I see as a moderate borderline agnostic with regard to liberal or conservative issues socially speaking.
Besides being pro-life, and paying lip service to Christianity, the rest of his personal actions do not strike me as classically conservative or even Christian in the slightest any more than Pelosi is a real faithful catholic.
So to be clear, I think some of that bible-thumping stuff he does is an act for photo ops and stuff.
I see him like Paul Atreides, acting like the messiah for the Fremen.
I trust his intentions though at least far enough to support him as GEOTUS. So forgive me if I see it differently than you do. We are still on the same team :)
What's funny is we were told there were just a few radical progressives in Congress like the squad so where are the rest of the plain old Democrats and why would they be caving to the supposed minority radicals? Everyday we are finding out more and more about just how bad things really are in our once great country.
Elon Musk sends tens of millions of fake ballots to Mars in a bid to become President of the red planet. The rocket engine powering the vessel is the Space X model "Joe Biden".
He should send a ballot collection box full of real fake ballots. He could play BallotMan on continuous loop until Ruby Freeman could not crank the wind up radio anymore.
This demonstrates both how imperative it is that we as a species win this culture war, and also just how likely it is that we will. Elon wouldn't be risking all this if it wasn't both THIS important, but also possible. No one is perfect, certainly not Elon, but he is planning on being on the right side of history. Either the good guys have something on him, or he truly is a humanitarian who believes in freedom and expanding the human race beyond the earth. I will accept either possibility. For now He truly appears to be "our" guy.
Trump's little potshot at Elon which hits back at Elon's little potshot at Trump makes me suspect they're talking about a lot of things in back channels right now.
Best they can come up with is his fortune started with blood emeralds. It comes off as just jealously because hes worth hundreds of billions. They are commies and feel that his money should be theirs. He made that money by joining with people who think outside the box. Greedy fucks who don't want to work to get what they want.
Ya... Emeralds.. The cheapest of gems lol Someone on here tried to argue that with me a while ago... Apparently owning a business is bad because gems are involved.... Just cause you own a "mine" doesn't mean youre loaded or having huge profits. A mine can be small or massive.
The emerald thing is bullshit, anyway. His family was upper-middle class at best, and his dad was half a deadbeat. Elon slept under his desk at his first startup, which they bootstrapped from nothing into a multimillion dollar exit.
He's just the next target. Trump, Rogan, Musk. They have a audience, people will hang on their every word. The commies can't have that. Don't question. Go to sleep little baby. We got this.
This is the correct answer. If they publically align, the left would shit itself in silly in confused insanity. We don't need them more insane than they usually are....they do weird things.
You ever seen or heard of rap ābeefsā? Same concept. They are drumming up attention/visibility. Itās purposely orchestrated, with each ādiss trackā becoming more juicy. Until they have made their money/point and move on. At least that is the vibe I am getting here.
Well, if he did spend just a fraction of his wealth for a fat pipe, IRCops (what moderators are on an IRC server), and an IRC server, I'd add it to my list of servers. Normies can use a web based client. Just sayin'.
I bet he keeps going. The left is turning on him, and looks to be turning on him hard. That will be unpleasant. Only thing to do is take the red pill when there is no blue pill. Or give up, but he doesn't seem the type.
I'm old enough to remember that James Comey locked up Martha Stewart for confusing a few dates after 10 days of grilling when he was actually going after her for insider trading.
She was found guilty of lying to investigators / obstruction of justice. Imagine that, investigating her for insider trading and finding nothing yet locked her up for bulshit. Meanwhile Hillary was found guilty for a whole bunch of bulshit by the same guy but it wasn't enough to lock her up.
Shem Horne, whomever that is: "I guarantee that elonmusk tweeting about Sussmann is the first time the vast majority of people on this website have ever heard of him, and probably John Durham as well. Twitter has been suppressing tweets about the trial all week."
Elon: "I only heard about it last month and was blown away"
How have people not heard about this?! Is the media suppressing it so much that no one knows about it?
Eta - LOL I'm looking at where this all came from. Apparently someone tweeted in response to Hillary's 2016 tweet about Trump and Alfa Bank: "elonmusk I have reported this tweet as misleading disinformation to the powers that be at twitter. I would be interested to know if, when you receive control over the company, anything was done with this at any level. Pls advise soonest."
To which Elon responded with the OP's screen shot. Then he tags Parag and Vajayjay or whatever her name is with, "What say you?"
Must be! It's like his mind is opening, it's kinda fun to witness.
He's still talking about it. On May 16th Jim Jordan posted: "Christopher Steele created the dossier. Glenn Simpson sold it to the press. Michael Sussman took it to the FBI. And Democrats and the media lied to you about it all."
Elon says: "All true. Bet most people still donāt know that a Clinton campaign lawyer, using campaign funds, created an elaborate hoax about Trump and Russia. Makes you wonder what else is fake"
When I first got redpilled and discovered the Donald I spent an extraordinary amount of time catching up and researching stuff and looking at it all through different eyes.
Exactly! Iām tired of everyone thinking that someone needs to align 100% to our ideals. This is leftist thinking. People are allowed to have different opinions, and if the person is being authentic then these opinions can change.
I understand that weāve been shit on many times before by different people, so caution should be taken, but Elon doesnāt seem to be backing down, and I think his eyes are opening more every day.
Yeah he has some leftist ideasā¦ trans-humanism is worrying..but heās a tech guy. I donāt think he wants this for the same reason George Soros or Klaus Schwab wants this.
I donāt think Elon hates the human race or wants to see 90% of it wiped out. I think he just wants to improve our lives. He just had no idea who he was working with.
If heās being real (which is seems to be) then he just made a lot of enemies. Which just so happens to be our enemies. I believe there is a phrase for this..
Same. And I'm pretty fucking sick of people here and anywhere else trying to TELL me what to think and about whom. I don't care if you are a leftist slob or Ultra Maga I will think what I fucking like as I always have. In fact, the MORE people try and control what I should think the angrier and more belligerent I will be.
He'll probably vote Republican, but not vote for Trump, because he doesn't like Trump and he's a Democrat that supports and promotes Democrat policies. He's just a sane Democrat that isn't all in on the tranny & radical things they've pushed since Trump turned their world upside down.
You could be right - I'm just interpreting his statement. I'm not sure why we wouldnt assume he's not also including POTUS election when talking about which party he votes for. I know he's not huge on Trump but it probably pales in comparison
We're seeing attacks on him in the Lefties San Francisco area newsrags, for instance a slander piece claiming he paid off sexual harassment accusers, and other slime attacks.
I can see they are disturbed by the Twitter situation and his newest fallings out.
The Marxists are like the Scientology at its cultiest.
Hillary, her campaign, about 90% of the Democrats in Congress, and the left wing media all need to be tried for treason for what they did the last ~6 years.
If you were a Trump supporter when he said Russia should give the emails to wikileaks you likely instantly predicted the Russian agent narrative and laughed at it, I just didn't suspect it'd ever be bigger than a 1 or 2 day red herring distraction from the clinton campaign.
Elon didn't kill himself.
It's amazing that we've known The whole story and how the Clinton campaign orchestrated all this for years, and now that we are finally getting a SINGLE person held accountable, Dems don't/won't care.
They rallied on this 24/7 for at least 3 years straight. They impeached Trump over it.
I'd like to settle for nothing less than the total destruction of the Democrat Party.
It can be replaced with the Republican Party, which also needs to be destroyed and replaced with the MAGA Party.
Edit: Obligatory shout out to the Fraud known as Evolution. The earth is not Billions of years old. Humans are not Millions of years old. We did not come from Apes. We did not come from rocks and puddles.
I'm sorry, there are zettabytes of data from astrophysics that prove beyond any doubt that your obligatory shout out against evolution is, simply, preposterous.
Be like me. See the reality around you... You can still believe in a higher power. You can still believe someone or something had to create all of this.
But understand, we have perfect understanding of how complex elements are forged in stars and we know it took this process about 8 billion years to give us the materials we have around us today -- but that this overall process began around 13.8 billion years ago.
We have telescopes that can see back billions of years to show us these processes at work.
Here on Earth? Geologists working with biologists can show us how prior life forms on this planet lived and died in the seas leaving strata of iron and oil and other compounds and elements and molecules we find today.
This took billions of years. We can measure it precisely. We can observe the past which to our eyes is happening today -- so we see these precise forces in action.
Seriously... It's 2022 AD...not 3,000 BC.
We don't have perfect understanding of much of anything, but we've constructed some pretty decent models here and there.
Exactly what you said. Its so sad people hear theories from people they respect so they think its all proven when almost none of it is.
I'm pretty sure the origin of "dark matter" was modelers finding that if they just tweaked the model to add a bit more mass, it more closely resembled reality.
The model being wrong in some subtle way is discussed, but the mainstream scientific opinion is still ghost particles that don't interact in any way other than donating the mass needed to make the model work. At least people are allowed to criticize dark matter without being censored or committing career suicide, unlike questioning the models that say CO2 is causing global warming.
I think this stuff bothers me because I like models, they're very useful when you want to analyze something you already know a lot about and has fairly narrow bounds. Electronics, fluidics, thermodynamics, stress, physics...models are great. Not perfect but extremely useful.
In terms of discovering new things in widely bounded systems though, it seems to easily lead to chasing ghosts in the model...or simply solving for whatever gets you more grant money.
The thing about dark matter, and why criticism of it is misguided, is that dark matter is also an admission that our models are wrong. It's just that, on balance given all the evidence, the vast majority of physicists believe it's more likely that our models of particle physics are wrong than that our models of gravity are wrong. Dark matter is actually quite parsimonious: you assume some of it and you get large scale structure, the right CMB spectrum, and you get the galactic rotation curves that were the original motivation.
No other competitor comes close to this explanatory power, and they all tie themselves into knots trying to explain the bullet cluster or darkmatterless galaxies like NGC 1052-DF2. That's the kicker: there are places in the universe where we see baryonic matter but no dark matter. That's pretty much a smoking gun. Proponents of one of the most famous competitors to dark matter models, MOND, essentially resigned themselves to the fact that some dark matter must exist, they just think it's in a lesser amount than most other physicists assume.
It may be disappointing that certain properties of the universe that we might've supposed calculable can only be measured. But it's not up to us. We get the universe that's out there, not the one that would satisfy our aesthetic preconceptions.
There's lot of assumptions about how the universe works at large scales built into not only our theories, but also into our measurements. I'll believe in dark matter when someone actually measures it.
this is an astoundingly brilliant comment
This is not what I came here for tonight but Iām here for it
Dark matter is the fuel that expands the universe obviously there is something beyond the bound of space that we don't have the technology to see or understand. Breaching the solar system than the galaxy is the only way to truly start to understand what really is empty space.
Yes. We are still missing a piece of the puzzle with quantifying all of the forces. Just more recently, we started looking at gravity as not a force, but rather a reaction to the bending of space-time...
That the universe is expanding is also another inference accepted as fact derived from redshift.
"obviously"? I think what may or may not exist outside the universe, or even if "existence" is meaningful in such a place, is one of the over all least obvious things.
Sure, I'm all for space exploration and instrumentation.
Right!
Except for the Origin of Life.
One of many things we don't understand.
Our COVID models were spot on!
Nah fusion is simple. We get what is happening in the sun. We just canāt control it yet. Simple physics, vastly complicated engineering.
Cosmology is not even a science yet in my book, but physics is well established. Biology is still a dark art of economic conquest without much science really being done either.
We have enough understanding of physics to make it possible for someone to type and share right here.
This is literally billions of inventions at work.
That so many disparate tools function so well and so reliably tells us: we have understanding enough.
So don't sweat it the next time you get on a plane. No worries, the aeronautical guys know their stuff too -- just enough I guess.
You said perfect and perfect is a very high bar. There's plenty of things in the domains you listed we don't fully understand, there's "open problems" in every field.
"Understanding enough" to do something useful can be really far from perfect understanding. Plenty of drugs are not well understood, but we still make them and hand them out like candy.
This is absolutely hilarious given how many lives and how many dollars were spent in aviation getting to the point of understanding we have now. When we started building jets we didn't even understand basic shit like stress risers around tight bends (DeHaviland Comet windows). It really is an ever-increasing, asymptotic, "just enough". Open problem now: software validation, so the 737-MAX crashes don't happen again.
Hey, if we can put a man on the moon, the sky is the limit!
.
Tasty redpills here:
https://patriots.win/p/15HIhWzTCT/
You speak but say nothing.
I'm sure it sounds like nothing to someone who doesn't understand it, and you've made it very clear you don't understand much of anything.
Iām thankful for Creationists, though.
Their persistence and insidiousness made biologists take seriously the notion that they need to show their work.
I learned a shitload about biology because of Creationists, and inasmuch as I understand evolution, itās because it has held up to ambitious and sincere scrutiny. It might be one of the few things I can genuinely believe inā¦ if thereās no one seriously challenging some idea, then how do I know it stacks up?
This debate is what introduced me to serious thinking about epistemology, which is the same reason I donāt trust the āexpertsā on masks and gene juice.
Astrophysics explanation for age of the universe is solid, but macro evolution has no legs to stand on. The jumps are just too big, the leaps in the fossil record so incredibly far from quantum that the faith needed to believe evolution after seeing the evidence is incredible.
There are billions of fossils, allegedly over billions of years, yet across the board the fossil record takes massive jumps. We also have never seen complex organs added, and logic would seem to make such a jump impossible to happen slowly. Mutations are generally cancerous, and to get the dozens to hundreds of mutations needed to create an entirely new, complex organ to form, it just doesn't make sense. Pointing to an animal getting smaller or bigger when isolated on an island is very very different from the kind of changes needed for this to happen. Big faith needed to believe in magical appearing complex organs.
Yes, it's the same arguements creationists always make, but it is because there aren't actually any good, logical answers. It is always appeal to authority, or ad hominem, or a red herring, or a strawman.
I have a different take from my experience looking into it.
The diversity of life exists in a nested hierarchy of traits, whether you look at genetic features or physical features. E.g., if you know that an animal makes milk, you instantly know a lot of other things about it too (bilateral symmetry, hair, eyes, etc.). Common descent is a powerful explanation for this feature, and it isnāt inconsistent with other things we have good reason to believe are true of the universe, and it has been remarkably consistent with discoveries made since its proposal (e.g. genetic evidence).
Fossils are extremely rare. We have a lot of them because life is so prolific, but it is not common that something dies and gets fossilized, and there are periods of time that were dominated by lifeforms that were easier/harder to fossilize. The fossil record could only ever be incomplete, but in it we can see examples of the transitions of different features within the nested hierarchy.
I canāt buy an argument from incredulity (there isnāt enough time or the changes are too big); what is being demanded is an explanation for something very big, and I find evolution to be very satisfying for how well something so simple fits with something so big.
I donāt fault you for finding it hard to accept; it demands that you accept that differences of degree and clear categorical differences are manifestations of the same thing. Speciation is the summation of a great many differences of degree; in retrospect, you can draw a categorical difference, but at no point along the ancestry does it clearly move from one category to the other.
This is a feature of the universe that is hard to grapple with because we generally cope with complexity by drawing clear distinctions between things. This difficulty is the same reason why Leftists are so effective at confusing people with marginal example cases that are far removed from our experience (like abortion being justified by rape, as if evil justifies more evil. Or XXY syndrome invalidating the gender binary). A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. The existence of even egregious abnormalities does not invalidate sexual dimorphism as a useful model of reality. Leftists are obsessed with erasing distinctions, and thatās destroying civilization. You may even be justified if you want to give evolution theory some of the blame. But MY takeaway from it is that clear categories can be valid and useful models, even if things get really mushy very close to the dividing line and very far from the dividing line. To me, thatās the nature of reality and our brainās relationship with it. This all might seem very tangential, but thatās how evolution has informed my ātheory of knowledge,ā and why I generally believe in the Conservative narrative despite all the āyeah butās that people want to conjure in opposition to the nature of nature.
I still think it dances away from the most difficult ideas, like life coming from inanimate materials, or invertebrates somehow getting a skeleton piecemeal, or 1000 other jumps that really must be explained, especially in light of all we know now about the complexities of such biological systems. These are not trivial matters, they are the foundation of the entire system Darwin hypothesized about. The book, after all, is called the Origin of Species, not the Similarities of Species.
It is like a Christian running away from the resurrection of Christ: the entire belief system is a joke if this issue is not addressed; as Paul the Apostle said, if Christ isn't risen from the dead, Christians are to be most pitied. Similarly, if the key points of Darwinism are not defended, why bother with ancillary points?
Evolution makes no attempt to explain the existence of life; evolution explains the diversity of life.
Evolutionary biologists donāt shrink away from the things you are hoping for it to explain regarding the origin of species. Bones from not-bones is just subtle differences in the composition of connective tissue, tuned over many many generations.
Itās not like there was a sack of skin and it happened to need bones but just hadnāt evolved them yet. There would have been structural tissue that was not as hard as bone, and its composition changed over time. Incremental changes in myriad directions through mutation, filtered through natural selection, creates the appearance of a directed process.
You might say that bones are special because of their intricate interconnectedness, but skin is just as special if you drill down into it. I donāt have a hard time imagining how these duplications of preexisting structures could then be independently tuned to have increasing specialization. Your fingers and toes are all variations on the same motif. Bone, cartilage, and tendon are similarly variations on the same motif.
Right!
I have the same problem with evolution. Like you said, the number of mutations that would have to occur to turn a microorganism into something like a squirrel far exceeds the short timeline, especially considering, as you said before, that most mutations are cancerous. Now if we were talking about a timeline of 50 - 100 billion years of mutations, then that would hold more water. Assuming your sun would last that long. :p
If in the year of our lord current year you're still uncritically parroting the irreducible complexity argument even as it's been carefully debunked multiple times, you have nobody but yourself to blame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
for just one example that is not at al appeal to authority, or ad hominem, or red herring, or strawman. Just a straightforward explanation of how the thing you assert can't happen, happens.
Lol you site Wikipedia as a scholastic pub? And irreducible complexity has not been debunked at all! It has stired up another science as chemical evolution. No matter if you put a thousand monkeys in a room with their own typewriters that they bang on all day, the complete work of Shakespeare will never be churned out. No matter how long you give them! This is abstract irreducible complexity.
Wikipedia is a rag. But it's easy way to cite a summary from a bunch of sources, because like it or not this is not controversial stuff in the slightest. It's not even complicated stuff. It's just something that creationists are willfully ignorant about.
Evolution has been absolutely destroyed by biologists and geneticists. It's starting to get begrudgingly admitted by even die hard evolutionists that the theory has failed. The new theory is that "aliens" helped it along and added information to genetic codes to create new species. I know this will open a can of worms so I'm not getting into this conversation anymore, but evolution is retarded.
I learned more about evolution, and science generally, by trying to disprove it than I ever learned from simply passively memorizing information about it.
Holy shit, an anti-vaxxer.
Yeah, it's my knowledge of basic physics that made me cringe DECADES AGO when so many Asian populations started wearing those crummy cloth masks to guard against SARS and pollution. I realize they were living in some crappy conditions. But I knew full well that shitty mask was accomplishing nothing. The evil spirts they were trying to ward off were microscopic. Those masks were useless. But their following across Asia became cult like -- a religion.
So just imagine my reaction -- no doubt yours too -- when they became a thing here. Being forced to wear a mask in order to buy groceries or liquor was, for me, a humiliation; a subjugation. I absolutely, positively understand the physics here and I know: this does nothing but pound a wedge between me and my fellow humanorwomanity.
But no mask? No service. (And the mask worshippers never once backed down! Not once did I get a cashier to complete the deal unless I was masked--and believe me, I tried two dozen times.)
Youāre data is based on historical data being true which you cannot prove. They are rewriting history before our eyes as we live and record it, how do you think it was 100 years ago, 1000?
There is no proof of evolution, itās all theory and modeling. We are not evolved from our fellow humans thousands of years ago , we are not smarter.
The problem is we are good at destroying ourselves and documents. There is much more evidence for young earth now that we know history is all likely false.
Hell, Roman Empire could have been 500 years ago, but we would never really know
No I'm not!
Picard starts beating you over the head
"YOUR!...NAME!!...IS....DATA!!!"
Wait isn't Picard a robot now too
No, now he's an aging homosexual looking for a way to fill his remaining years by vainly attempting to reclaim his most glorious acting period.
AND a robot.
There is proof all around you. Why would whales have finger phalanges and pelvises?
Why do humans have an appendix? Evolution is actually very clear.
Why do straight men have nipples??
The notion that an appendix is a vestigial organ has been thoroughly debunked. Can you live without it? Yes, but it still has functions, chiefly the preservation of gut bacteria.
Evolutionists looked at the appendix decades ago, couldn't figure out what it was for, then assumed it had no purpose to shoehorn it into their evolutionary model. Shows you just how arrogant and biased such "scientists" are.
So you say they were wrong about their medical hypothesis about this particular organ. That's how it works, you have to take for granted that people are wrong more often than right.
Exadaptation has many examples. The language of "purpose" or an organ "for something" is really quite imprecise. It's not easy to reformulate it in physical terms, which is why it took white men to systematize the concept of evolutionary variation.
Itās not a matter of being wrong about a medical diagnosis, itās a matter of assuming that an organ is vestigial without proof just because their theory predicts the existence of vestigial organs. Itās a matter of letting oneās worldview cloud their judgement such that they reinterpret and warp evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around. There are many more such examples of this: Piltdown Man, Lucy, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, and others. Every single one of those instances involves an evolutionist twisting data to fit his theory, which is bad science.
Also, the term āpurposeā isnāt imprecise, it just doesnāt fit your evolutionary framework. Those are not the same.
As for your comments on white men, this is The Donald community, not the Daily Stormer. Then again, Iām not shocked in the slightest that a proponent of evolution is a white supremacist pos.
Yes, your answer must be correct then. We all come from the incestual babies of Cain and Eve. Makes sense.
Look at the Hapsburgs if you wanna know what happens with incest.
So you're not even going to try to address my argument. Nice.
Current models of the Flood indicate that Earth's radioactive elements, including carbon-14 and potassium-40, were generated during the Flood, and that this radioactivity is responsible for the gradual corruption of DNA. This results in genetic abnormalities and premature aging. See this link for the details:
https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html
Therefore before the Flood, human DNA was nearly perfect and substantially less susceptible to genetic abnormalities, which allowed Adam and Eve's children to procreate without worrying about defects. (spoiler alert: mitochondrial Eve and ancestral Adam have already been found, so don't try and tell me that Adam and Eve don't exist).
Note that the Old Testament ban on incest happens centuries after the Flood, which is precisely when genetic degradation would have been sufficient to make such practices dangerous.
Finally, due to genetic entropy, the people living before the Flood would have had far greater genetic diversity than post Flood humanity, which also would have allowed more closely related individuals to procreate without the defects seen today.
In summary, incest was a temporary measure that was feasible due to greater genetic diversity and lack of DNA corruption by radioactive decay. The Flood created both a genetic bottleneck and radioactivity that is slowly corrupting our DNA, which is why God banned the practice after the Flood during the Bronze Age.
What Cain and Able lived, there were already enough other humans that Cain had to be marked to avoid being killed.
There is no reason that Adam and Eve had to be anything but the first humans to possess souls. There may well have been prior races of near-humans.
Where did all the new information come from in DNA? Why is it no where else in the universe does new information spring into existence? There's greater odds that a typewriter factory exploding would create a perfect 20 volume encyclopedia. The number of zeros you would need to represent such odds after the decimal point is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
Just because The Science doesnāt understand something doesnāt make it evolution
Look at Darwin's finches. What's the Bible say about that?
There is a difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution, aka natural selection, is a directly observable phenomenon that not even creation scientists dispute. However, it has only ever been observed to result in small changes within a species, and has never been observed to result in one species transitioning to another, which is macro evolution. Furthermore, it would be impossible for simpler forms of life to evolve into more complex ones, as that would require a natural process to decrease entropy, which violates the laws of thermodynamics.
The very term natural selection implies selecting from genetic information that already exists, not the spontaneous generation of new genetic material. The only known way to get new genetic material is via mutation, and not a single mutation has ever been demonstrated to be beneficial, despite scientists artificially inducing mutations in thousands of generations of fruit flies.
Lastly, any time environmental pressures force an organism to āadaptā by expressing already present genes, only organisms who express genes appropriate to the environment survive, and the rest die out. This results in a net decrease of biodiversity. Natural selection actually prohibits macro evolution by continuously trimming away the quantity and quality of genes present in any organisms gene pool, with no known mechanism of providing new genetic information thatās actually beneficial.
Theorized, but unproven, to have come from a common ancestor.
Once again, a compelling idea with no proof. Hence, the Theory of Evolution.
Spez: You should be asking what the Bible says about dinosaurs!
Lol...the finches have been proven not to be evolution at all. Modern studies have proven that the beak differences are environmental gene expression. The beaks are because of cyclical diets and when food is scarce. Their beaks are more akin to a calloused hand and not evolution.... man all this is out their but you are unaware of it. This demonstrates that you are disingenous and have conducted no due diligence...you have bought into evolution fairytale!
If the story of Genesis was true, and what you said was also true (that evolution is the mechanism by which species evolve), then what would the answer be?
I often wonder why we try to answer first century questions with seventeenth century answers.
Which story in Genesis? Noah's ark? How did marsupials get to Australia?
The Flood triggered an ice age that resulted in lower sea levels for several centuries, allowing the migration of humans and animals to every continent. Plus humans had the ability to build boats at the time, which is how they and other animals would have made it to more remote islands.
The book of Genesis. Same question as before. Go for it.
One hundred years after the Flood is called Peleg in the bible and that means the day the earth split apart. The Bible alludes to a Pangeatic super continent, plate tectonics, and Continental drift. Drift was very rapid at first and has slowed over time. In fact of b the earth was billions of years old then the continents would have broken up, separated, drifted, and merge d together again and we would have become again pangea.. all this proves a young Earth and evolution pseudo science is fatally flawed!
How did crustaceans and Ocean Crabs get on top of mountains? Yes, There is a mountain crab just like king crabs of today from the ocean.
Its called Theistic Evolution when the two schools of thought are combined. Though this still does not prove evolution at all!
I'm looking through a telescope.
Yep. It's balls on accurate.
The 1000-year-old and older Roman buildings are standing all around me in my city, and are visible outside my very window as I type this, you cretinous subhuman redneck. :D
I'm not disputing the age of the Roman ruins, but seriously...how do any of us know anything really? Because of what we were told by "experts" who lie about every single fucking thing they are paid to lie about?
Unless you are the dude in the lab doing the radio-carbon dating, how do you know the actual result? Even if it is, did you gather the sample too? Are the instruments accurate? How do you know, did you build the instrument?
Here's a stat for you...98.7 percent of scientists agree...with whoever provides their funding. Is that true? Maybe...I just made it up. Could be higher. But all I need to do is bribe...excuse me, fund via grant...a group of scientists to sign a letter saying "98.7 percent of sceitists agree..." and boom, I've created settled science! Disagree? Well, you must be a white supremicist. And since you are obviously a racist, your opinion doesn't matter, subhuman redneck.
This is precisely why evolution has taken over academia. If any scientist dares advocate for an alternative explanation, their funding is cut and theyāre ostracized from the āscientific communityā
Even doing the carbon dating, youāre basing your science on The Expert. Lol at what that means anymore . All science imo is almost disproven at this point. We need to start again .
They broke science or else maybe it never really existed in the first place
There's a lot more to dating than radioactive signatures, a lot of it is just layers and context. If you're on a site and you find a Roman coin in proximity to other artifacts, you can usually pin that coin down to the span of an Emperor. From there you can make the completely reasonable assumption that most anything else on that site at around the same depth, as long as it doesn't appear disturbed, is from that approximate era.
This is why archaeologists get super SUPER asshurt about treasure hunters, it breaks the order of the layers and they can't recover that information.
I have no argument with anything you just said. My concern, I guess, is the complete politicization of science. It seems unlikely to me that an archaeologist would fake results for a political agenda, then again...
within the last year or so I remember reading a story about a viking burial where they tested DNA from the dig and decided that the person buried there must have been a female warrior chieftan of some sort. Now, obviously I must be a bigot to question that in the era of shield walls, spears and axes that a womyn could not possibly be strong enough to match men of the era, but so be it. It also occurs to me that reputedly female slaves would sometimes be buried with male viking chieftans, and maybe whatever DNA sample they had, came from a slave. But the article was insistent, the subject in the burial had to be female, although apparently not enough of the bone structure (pelvis) remained to prove it. Since the science was now settled, anyone daring to question the conclusion would be proclaimed a racist/homophobe/misogynist/xenophobe.
Once upon a time it was reasonable, or at least so it seemed, to believe experts and scientists because there were ethics and standards and stuff...Now there is only the narrative, dictated by those who pay the bills. Facts that support the narrative are valid. Facts that do not support the narrative are racist and must be ignored or more likely, suppressed. See also global cooling/global warming/climate change.
So I'm not a science denier, I just don't trust the people doing the science.
Even the coins are based on some accurate dating of history through books, which are NOt primary sources which are missing. And the secondary are controlled by the Vatican
They should be 1509+ right, how do you even know that. The same Science that told us of masks and corona?
Typical, Can't disprove attach the man.. Ad homonym at its finest! Real mature serious scientist you are!
Bro.... Ring species around volcanoes prove evolution.
End of story.
Bro...the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution.
End of story.
no the Cambrian explosion proves life is like a fire and with tons of food everything has babies
Math is the issue. Some atheist (ironically) mathematicians studied the Cambrian explosion and, to make a very long story short, developed a mathematical proof that evolution could not be the source for the massive number of species that arose during that period.
Evotard aleert dna made rocks cuz rocks smart af sey Rocks made dna by chance alert genius in dq house
this is an in fact quote from a text book
O so it must be true LOL!! Damn man are you that blind to your own plagiarized quote? Do you hear yourself? Ok I will speak slowly.... Food also must evolve just like species so magically all at once at least one sentient life for evolved at the same time in unrelated news, vegetation decided to evolve. The Universe is not large enough according to the believed rate of expansion that is measurable today. For one to evolve the universe is arguably not large enough, Now two at the same time that is impossible!
Go back to your drawing board and give it another go. I tell you, Evolution is a race horse that refuses to run when the gates are opened. It fails in the first very basic logical assumptions that an honest person seeks to answer.
Negatory even more easy to debunk pseudo science. Go study chromosomes or do you believe a human can screw a dog and produce offspring? With out the exact count (Humans = 23 X 2) to life forms cannot reproduce. you may believe a mule is like a ring species, but you would be wrong unless you see devolution as positive evolution. Mule are products female horses and donkeys for the most part they cannot reproduce but sometimes the do. But the resulting mule is sterile and cannot reproduce The same is true in certain down-syndrome; sterile as well because they lack a chromosome.
You cannot have an argument about this when you observe negative mutations. Being that only negative mutations have ever been never a positive mutation. And Nature deals harshly with these negative mutations by sterilization or even DNA Corrective measures.
How come to you zealots never know these things? They are out there for all to see and study, yet you blissfully walk around blindfolder parroting something a professor theorizes because you are to lazy to test the argument?
Is a ferret a mink?
The puritan evangelical retards downvoting you are the reason we are losing. God is indeed real, but we donāt give Him enough credit and we restrict his miracles to near stupid levels of human understanding.
I believe in a higher power.
But we all know many things now that those in the time of Jesus did not.
Funny I would say we know less than they did. Humans didnāt get smarter, have you noticed humanity? Theyāre dumber every year .
Weāre just fancy, that doesnāt mean knowledge
Another moron thinking they're clever.
A day to man is as a thousand years to the Lord.
His time is not ours. Whatever actual truth exists will point to our creator.
I have no doubt in the overarching theme which He has handed down. There is plenty of room for unexpected curve balls. Has mankind gone through numerous iterations? Maybe. Has God allowed mankind to progress repeatedly before, only to knock him back down to zero when he attempts to reach roo high? Perhaps.
I see no conflict between history and Christianity.
The Shroud of Turin is what did it for me.
Unfortunately, I believe you are incorrect on the evolution point. It is very clear that some humans did evolve from rocks, the democrat liberals currently inhabiting the planet share the same brain as their rock ancestors.
:)
As a rock enthusaiast my self we smat
Why would the dems suddenly care? Where in their behavior does that happen? We need to be talking to disaffected democrats and liberals. That would be men and women who hold positions similar to other disaffected democrats and liberals. Two examples of these would be:
President Donald J. Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
My original hope was that Democrats would be fully and undoubtedly exposed as a criminally corrupt organization that was 100% responsible for RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
My hope was that it would be so obvious that they were responsible for the criminal act, that normies would understand and comprehend, and the Democrat Party would implode and be destroyed.
Some will but the DNC is synonymous with Disney and AT&T. They are the same institution. It won't attack itself unless it is an advantage to pretend to do so. The voices and those disaffected are squelched or censored, shadow banned, etc.
That's who we need to reach. Before they funnel them to some fake populist like Sanders.
Bro.
They can't even see how obvious it is that a man can not give birth.
And you expect them to see they have been fooled?
Happening real time. Give it another 6 mos. November crescendo.
Theyāll fasefag Russia into starting wwiii before that happens
Theyāll still say hEs pOoTiNs pUpPeT
Yes, a significant portion of the US population still believes that Trump worked with Putin to steal the election!
It's insane!
Gee I canāt understand why they believe this considering that they heard it from fake news nonstop 24/7 for fucking years and theyāre STILL reporting that it happened
The interesting thing is that Dems know better than anybody else that it was them that colluded with Russia. They know everything is projection. They applaud it. Itās one of their weapons and tactics
That's what happens when you don't have a fair and honest media. What we have is a propaganda arm of the deep state. Yeah there's a lot of dumb/asleep people but the MSM exasperates the problem tremendously.
Which is funny because he's providing the satellites to keep Ukraine going but hey, logic never stopped a leftist before.
You really had me in the first half...
Elon is launching rockets into space. He has a higher "need to know" priority than anyone in Clinton's sphere right now. He is integrated into Space Force and milintel because of his work.
Clinton, as scary as she may be, is completely outclassed by this man as a civilian. Never mind that Elon has the keys to a geopositioned satellite over her head at this very moment. Meanwhile Clinton is visibly guilty of treason and has a huge liability cloud surrounding herself and everyone who funneled money through the Clinton Foundation.
If you were a spook, who's side would you want to be on? The guy launching spacecraft or the woman accused of treason who has been made politically irrelevant as well as toxic?
Even if Elon were a libtard, he landed rocket boosters on barges. Thatās hard to disrespect.
He's not a libtard, he's just a plain ol' Democrat. Not the newly radicalized modern Democrats, but a normal Democrat style from 30-40 years ago.
Same as Trump just about if you really look at it clearly without too much Deus Vult colored glasses.
Trump has been a conservative for at least 20 years
He is only conservative compared to lunatic leftists and fringey liberals of today. By the standards of 20-40 years ago, he is still a leftist moderate ecconomy-oriented democrat. It's just that the democrat party has pulled so far to the left and globalist that he looks conservative now to young people today.
Also just to be clear, being left and liberal are not in fact synonymous. Nor is right and conservative. That is a framing trick politicians have used to oversimplify the tribalistic patterns of stupid people incapable of nuance to make them easier to control.
Trump's policy has absolutely shifted I'm sure, he's been alive a long time, and with age people often get more conservative.
But he is not really a traditional conservative, nor a right winger.
He is a nuanced America first populist, which is something most conservatives identify as. So there is a lot of overlap.
By my standards (right-wing libertarian) he still favors a bigger centralized government than I want and thus closer to a leftist by a large margin.
Socially speaking, taking into account both his public opinion and personal habits, he is closer to what I see as a moderate borderline agnostic with regard to liberal or conservative issues socially speaking.
Besides being pro-life, and paying lip service to Christianity, the rest of his personal actions do not strike me as classically conservative or even Christian in the slightest any more than Pelosi is a real faithful catholic.
So to be clear, I think some of that bible-thumping stuff he does is an act for photo ops and stuff.
I see him like Paul Atreides, acting like the messiah for the Fremen.
I trust his intentions though at least far enough to support him as GEOTUS. So forgive me if I see it differently than you do. We are still on the same team :)
Democrat like JFK
I miss those
What's funny is we were told there were just a few radical progressives in Congress like the squad so where are the rest of the plain old Democrats and why would they be caving to the supposed minority radicals? Everyday we are finding out more and more about just how bad things really are in our once great country.
They are raking in cash and power while commies are put in to help distract us.
True, but Bill Clinton landed "rockets" on barges too. :P
The DEATH CIGAR
He should launch fake ballots into space and put it up on youtube.
The potential for memes and tweets would be incredible.
Elon Musk sends tens of millions of fake ballots to Mars in a bid to become President of the red planet. The rocket engine powering the vessel is the Space X model "Joe Biden".
He should send a ballot collection box full of real fake ballots. He could play BallotMan on continuous loop until Ruby Freeman could not crank the wind up radio anymore.
That would be amazing.
Elon for President of Mars Voting day, November 5, 2022.
I'm starting a thread you bastards.
A Dominion voting both on Mars for the Alien vote
If I had 3 wishes, one would be to know exactly what data she exfiltrated from the SCIFs she entered and who she sold it to.
Really disappointing more stuff doesnāt get leaked.
His name is Seth Rich.
His name is Seth Rich.
F
American spies/China
Dunno, space is a hoax too so yeah....
Make a weather balloon and put a camera on it then.
Elongate
Neither did Robby Mook
Best scenario: Mook leaves behind a dead man's switch file exposing everything, and Hillary whacks him
This demonstrates both how imperative it is that we as a species win this culture war, and also just how likely it is that we will. Elon wouldn't be risking all this if it wasn't both THIS important, but also possible. No one is perfect, certainly not Elon, but he is planning on being on the right side of history. Either the good guys have something on him, or he truly is a humanitarian who believes in freedom and expanding the human race beyond the earth. I will accept either possibility. For now He truly appears to be "our" guy.
Trump's little potshot at Elon which hits back at Elon's little potshot at Trump makes me suspect they're talking about a lot of things in back channels right now.
Nope. Totally not at all on the same side. No collusion. Shhh.
Yes. Enemies. Bitter enemies. Quite.
Ready the cannons Reginald. For, uh, war? Yes. War.
The "fight" between them is to confuse the shitbag left. They're not sure if they should attack musk because trump is attacking him.
Kek. This is the correct answer. NPCs short-circuiting
Maybe they'll reboot and dump the mind virus?
Best they can come up with is his fortune started with blood emeralds. It comes off as just jealously because hes worth hundreds of billions. They are commies and feel that his money should be theirs. He made that money by joining with people who think outside the box. Greedy fucks who don't want to work to get what they want.
Ya... Emeralds.. The cheapest of gems lol Someone on here tried to argue that with me a while ago... Apparently owning a business is bad because gems are involved.... Just cause you own a "mine" doesn't mean youre loaded or having huge profits. A mine can be small or massive.
The emerald thing is bullshit, anyway. His family was upper-middle class at best, and his dad was half a deadbeat. Elon slept under his desk at his first startup, which they bootstrapped from nothing into a multimillion dollar exit.
He's just the next target. Trump, Rogan, Musk. They have a audience, people will hang on their every word. The commies can't have that. Don't question. Go to sleep little baby. We got this.
RACHEL MADDOW TELL ME WHAT TO THINK
Except theyāve already been ruthlessly attacking him since he said he was going to big twitter
McMahons and Trumps WWE āfeudā comes to mindā¦
šæšæšæ
Its to create a story. To create conflict that focuses on them both to hear what they say... Its good.
This is the correct answer. If they publically align, the left would shit itself in silly in confused insanity. We don't need them more insane than they usually are....they do weird things.
That how you get the tears
You ever seen or heard of rap ābeefsā? Same concept. They are drumming up attention/visibility. Itās purposely orchestrated, with each ādiss trackā becoming more juicy. Until they have made their money/point and move on. At least that is the vibe I am getting here.
I would pay a lot of money for tracks of Elon and Trump dissing each other in a rap battle.
Epic rap battles of history
Great stuff but the the liberal bias does ooze in the more political oriented ones.
It could be half-wholesome and in good fun, too.
Isn't Elon into anime tiddies or furries or something?
The procedes of the tracks and event could go to MAGA scholarship or something or internships? Just spitballing here.
yeah someone could definitely do an old school rap battle with fake voices but actually make it funny
Kayfabe
But who gets to be the heel?
They'd be fighting for real over who gets to play that part, the heel makes the story.
back channels, like what, a server rack in the bathroom or something?
Omg they should get Platte River Networks to host it
actually yeah. except this one is legal, so LOLOL!!
Well, if he did spend just a fraction of his wealth for a fat pipe, IRCops (what moderators are on an IRC server), and an IRC server, I'd add it to my list of servers. Normies can use a web based client. Just sayin'.
Conspiracy theorist
Impossible as I am armored by skepticism.
Trump should come out and say he hates Elon musk was all his guts and then the media would love Elon musk again.
Only if it's beside a photo of them both giving thumbs up.
Or the okay gesture.
Gotta get a 14 in there somewhere lol.
Look at this photograph ā¦.
I really want to see the cognitive dissonance this would bring about.
It would break their thought pattern, AND take control of the entire narrative itself.
It needs to happen
Musk has been activated
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527732218138972161
That second sentence starting with BTW is an activator!
Holy shit! That one gets people to reevaluate their decisions.
Rofl at the first reply to his tweet:
The person has a Ukraine flag in their bio and presumes to tell one of the smartest men in the world what he should and shouldn't be focusing on lol.
I can smell it!
Eeeeaaaauuuu!
at this rate, twitter will be suspending his account indefinitely as well.
I'm a little surprised they haven't.
Let's fucking hope so. All evidence suggests that he's a globalist twat.
Let's hope I'm wrong. (I'm never wrong)
I literally never thought of "sus, man"... that's hilarious. Glad Elon's seemingly on the good side.
Sus, man and Elongate. Weird stuff.
Next thing you know they'll tell us Biden's middle name sounds like something about stealing the election...
Lol
Don't just "lol" me. Say his name. I set it up easy for you.
SAY HIS FUCKING NAME!
Robbin-it!
Ok ...ok...ROBBIN' IT!..Kek
Finally, I get RELEASE!
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em pede...your welcome š
Heās getting more based daily.
I bet he keeps going. The left is turning on him, and looks to be turning on him hard. That will be unpleasant. Only thing to do is take the red pill when there is no blue pill. Or give up, but he doesn't seem the type.
And replying to based people. In this thread, Jim Jordan. And earlier today or yesterday Catturd.
I'm old enough to remember that James Comey locked up Martha Stewart for confusing a few dates after 10 days of grilling when he was actually going after her for insider trading.
If he had played nice with her, he could of got tips on better looking curtains to hide behind.
"no reasonable prosecutor..."
She was found guilty of lying to investigators / obstruction of justice. Imagine that, investigating her for insider trading and finding nothing yet locked her up for bulshit. Meanwhile Hillary was found guilty for a whole bunch of bulshit by the same guy but it wasn't enough to lock her up.
Whenever I see the name Comey I think hot dogs. With cheese and skyline chili. Oh god now I want a coney
I want a coney; now you sound like Joe Biden
Holy fuck... Elon is almost full MAGA these days šš
ultra maga*
ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MAAAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Almost more Maga than GEOTUS.
Shem Horne, whomever that is: "I guarantee that elonmusk tweeting about Sussmann is the first time the vast majority of people on this website have ever heard of him, and probably John Durham as well. Twitter has been suppressing tweets about the trial all week."
Elon: "I only heard about it last month and was blown away"
How have people not heard about this?! Is the media suppressing it so much that no one knows about it?
Eta - LOL I'm looking at where this all came from. Apparently someone tweeted in response to Hillary's 2016 tweet about Trump and Alfa Bank: "elonmusk I have reported this tweet as misleading disinformation to the powers that be at twitter. I would be interested to know if, when you receive control over the company, anything was done with this at any level. Pls advise soonest."
To which Elon responded with the OP's screen shot. Then he tags Parag and Vajayjay or whatever her name is with, "What say you?"
You'd think Elon would be more in the know, but he's been busy with other stuff I guess
Must be! It's like his mind is opening, it's kinda fun to witness.
He's still talking about it. On May 16th Jim Jordan posted: "Christopher Steele created the dossier. Glenn Simpson sold it to the press. Michael Sussman took it to the FBI. And Democrats and the media lied to you about it all."
Elon says: "All true. Bet most people still donāt know that a Clinton campaign lawyer, using campaign funds, created an elaborate hoax about Trump and Russia. Makes you wonder what else is fake"
He's doing some researching, that's for sure...
When I first got redpilled and discovered the Donald I spent an extraordinary amount of time catching up and researching stuff and looking at it all through different eyes.
I did the same. I remember staying up late into the night in bed with my laptop just reading and reading and reading.
Elon is now Trump circa 2012. I'm loving this.
Killary has her FBI hit squad on notice, watch yourself Elon she has killed dozens over the years. Bitch is pure evil.
Elongate his security detail
Guessing you're off by an order of magnitude...or two.
What's gonna happen when Elon tweets about '2000 Mules'?
Already has.
Where is it?
I've seen it because it was posted here.
He changed his tune on Trump 2024 yet?
Didnt he say hes voting repub now? I assume that means he would vote for Trump if he runs/wins the nom
I'll root for any freedom of speech absolutist. Go ahead and have bad ideas, but don't try and censor mine.
Exactly! Iām tired of everyone thinking that someone needs to align 100% to our ideals. This is leftist thinking. People are allowed to have different opinions, and if the person is being authentic then these opinions can change.
I understand that weāve been shit on many times before by different people, so caution should be taken, but Elon doesnāt seem to be backing down, and I think his eyes are opening more every day.
Yeah he has some leftist ideasā¦ trans-humanism is worrying..but heās a tech guy. I donāt think he wants this for the same reason George Soros or Klaus Schwab wants this.
I donāt think Elon hates the human race or wants to see 90% of it wiped out. I think he just wants to improve our lives. He just had no idea who he was working with.
If heās being real (which is seems to be) then he just made a lot of enemies. Which just so happens to be our enemies. I believe there is a phrase for this..
Same. And I'm pretty fucking sick of people here and anywhere else trying to TELL me what to think and about whom. I don't care if you are a leftist slob or Ultra Maga I will think what I fucking like as I always have. In fact, the MORE people try and control what I should think the angrier and more belligerent I will be.
Purity tests only get more restrictive and extreme.
Haha good catch!
He'll probably vote Republican, but not vote for Trump, because he doesn't like Trump and he's a Democrat that supports and promotes Democrat policies. He's just a sane Democrat that isn't all in on the tranny & radical things they've pushed since Trump turned their world upside down.
Trump exposed it all, if they stole it for Hillary in 2020 we'd all be kicked out of society for not getting the jab already.
You could be right - I'm just interpreting his statement. I'm not sure why we wouldnt assume he's not also including POTUS election when talking about which party he votes for. I know he's not huge on Trump but it probably pales in comparison
Give her time... Joking aside, if you turn out to be right about Elon, your bar tab is on me for a night!
Lol! That would be a cheap bar tab, because I don't drink alcohol or soda.
š. Good on you because I know I'd be better off if I gave it up
We're seeing attacks on him in the Lefties San Francisco area newsrags, for instance a slander piece claiming he paid off sexual harassment accusers, and other slime attacks.
I can see they are disturbed by the Twitter situation and his newest fallings out.
The Marxists are like the Scientology at its cultiest.
Funniest thing is they wanna shadow ban or suspend him for "misinformation" but they can't
The soyjack memes write themselves.
I think he knows, "if I die mysteriously it was nice know ya"
Elon, Putin and Trump are bringing the justice, bitches!
And DeSantis.
out for blood
https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1527742530925764608
https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1527742530925764608
I kind of wonder if he's trying to get banned from Twitter. That would be hilarious.
Don't be fooled by Durham's bullshit trial.
It has nothing to do with going after Sussman and everything to do with insulating and painting the FBI and DOJ as victims.
Just read the BBC head line. The poor FBI was manipulated.
R U FUCKIN KIDDIN ME???
Just more hoax theater where the real perpetrators are not held accountable.
Prove me wrong.
Not predicting, but that's been the pattern.
now elon is saying the funny sus word, there is no escape...
Nukes are out. Information nukes! Killer.
Man the meme nukes!
Elon for president
If he survives, he will probably be Trumps vice. which would be kinda cool.
I would not be surprised if Elon regularly browses Patriots
I would. We used to be good enough for that, but the signal to noise ratio is seriously degraded now.
Hot damn, this is getting fun! š„
Elon is about to get the Seth Rich treatment, I think.
Nah, he's technically got drones or ballistic missiles... I mean, if you repurpose them, of course.
When is Musk going to create a Truth Social account?
I love how he copies Twitter too!
Apartment 14, 4th Floor, Sustreet 29, Hevented Neighborhood
Hillary, her campaign, about 90% of the Democrats in Congress, and the left wing media all need to be tried for treason for what they did the last ~6 years.
Arkancide in 3...2...1...
huh? FBI was not "manipulated" FBI was and is an integral part of the bolshevik takeover...this Musk guy sounds like a good gatekeeper....
Sus man is Kevin from The Office?
If you were a Trump supporter when he said Russia should give the emails to wikileaks you likely instantly predicted the Russian agent narrative and laughed at it, I just didn't suspect it'd ever be bigger than a 1 or 2 day red herring distraction from the clinton campaign.
Who got the nitter link?
Holy shit Elon Musk has balls.
I didn't know this before but the kids today use the word "SUS" to mean SUSPECT.
SUS man is now more likely going to be a convicted criminal.
The fish rots from the head down....
Red pill early symptoms lol Awesome to watch him go through it all
Bout to shoot himself in the back of the head three times while attempting a PR in squats.
Elon just wants Salty's attention ;)
Wonder if they will tell him about the ""truth"", become one of the "elites". Or just suicide by two shots.
Based colonizer (of the stars).
This is amazing
I can't find that tweet anymore, the 'sus' tweet is there but people in the comments are confused what it is about. The suppression is real!
He want ded by redneck
I don't love him, but I like him.