1
Acefighter66 1 point ago +1 / -0

Have you seen what passes for a Libertarian these days?

2
Acefighter66 2 points ago +3 / -1

Fuck you no it isn't.

4
Acefighter66 4 points ago +4 / -0

You must first reach the shore of the Rubicon before you can cross it. No need to do it yet. I hope he does though when he gets there. Never seen him waver before.

22
Acefighter66 22 points ago +23 / -1

Common rifle calibers.

3
Acefighter66 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'd rather agree and admit I was wrong later than doom and be right. No. I'm with you if only because I know what's coming if I'm wrong.

63
Acefighter66 63 points ago +63 / -0

Based! We'll take ya here in Louisiana.

39
Acefighter66 39 points ago +39 / -0

Updooting if only to help get clarification on the information coming out of WI this morning.

Is the majority opinion of the court that the rule changes were illegal?

Is there any room to issue a remedy?

What's happening!?

2
Acefighter66 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wait, so was this AFTER they issued the opinion that bypassing photo ID requirement was unconstitutional? So they're saying "It was illegal, but we aren't going to do anything about it."

What are the vote margins in WI again?

2
Acefighter66 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hear ya, I've never been a particularly big fan of Dan, I also agree, if he wants to try and turn a buck off of the conservative exodus from Twitter more power to him. However, I disagree that Ron's concerns are non-starters as having "verified" accounts is a good thing when it's used for the purpose of just being sure the account you're reading is who they claim to be. If such a feature can be bypassed or distorted in order to mislead people to think they're listening to a high profile person and they aren't then that undermines the platform as a whole and Dan isn't addressing this actual claim. I think he should.

4
Acefighter66 4 points ago +4 / -0

Personally I've found Dan's responses here woefully inadequate. I hope TD.Win can figure out what's going on here. I'd hate to find that someones just grifting for money.

5
Acefighter66 5 points ago +5 / -0

Maybe so, however Ron's calling out the integrity of Parler, which Dan has thrown his name behind. This is not good for Parler and Dan is not addressing the serious and verifiable concerns? If there are "verified" accounts for Ron and James Woods on Parler and both say they've never made an account then that undermines the whole thing. If they're perhaps putting on a show then that's one thing but Dan isn't looking good here.

3
Acefighter66 3 points ago +3 / -0

We should just oust their government and ask the citizens new representation if they would like territory status

1
Acefighter66 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where does this certainty come from about specifically tomorrow morning? I know that the scotus requires a response from the defendants but there could be more avenues after that and there are more processes to cover.

1
Acefighter66 1 point ago +1 / -0

My friend offered a bet, I said no cause my payout for the same risk is much higher on the betting sites. Last I checked it was like 10:1 on predictit for some shares. I get if you want your friend to see you were right but ya'll should just buy an equal value of opposing shares or something. lol

2
Acefighter66 2 points ago +2 / -0

I already called Jeff Landry out on twitter and FB but we will see if he gets the message.

2
Acefighter66 2 points ago +3 / -1

Sounds oddly similar to the level of rhetoric they use against crazy leftists. Just because someone is on our side of a general debate doesn't mean they rationalized their way into it. There are idiots everywhere. Don't worry about this guy. He is not the rest of us.

-2
Acefighter66 -2 points ago +1 / -3

It's people like you who disappoint me most about this community. I thought we supported all speech regardless. Yet here you are, being exacly the thing you ridicule the left for being. It's really shameful.

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2