4
MarginofFraud 4 points ago +4 / -0

Heels up takes 3 months to address the crisis she enabled, immediately turns it into a vacation to a blue district and doesn't actually address the issue at its source. Under no circumstance will she actually have to confront reality.

1
MarginofFraud 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't call everyone I disagree with a glowie or a shill, just the dudes who come on her talking straight up nonsense. Do what you like with that.

1
MarginofFraud 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not my point. I'm not defending the police. I'm pointing out that a guy from a group that advocates against police shot a cop and it's not a surprising outcome. My secondary point is that the FBI is throwing the book at grandma's who took a trip to DC but can't wrap their minds around the fact that people who talk openly about killing cops won't lift a finger to address when they actually do kill those cops.

None of what I said is meant to be an endorsement of cops or the FBI, or advocatinf the FBI take up my policy positions. I'm just laying out facts as I see em.

2
MarginofFraud 2 points ago +2 / -0

I had my suspicions about her before she was announced, preferred the other girl being discussed, kind of didn't really care or pay attention when she was confirmed. I still feel sick now though, thinking I didn't do enough.

7
MarginofFraud 7 points ago +7 / -0

There was plenty reason at the time to delete Facebook that had nothing to do with being worried you were going to get busted for Jan 6 felonious flag waving charges. Facebook can was censoring like mad and deleted the sitting US President. I know plenty of people who deleted the app then and there.

This charge posits that no other reason could exist to delete FB than to hide evidence. This charge basically also says "we couldn't charge you with anything really so we charged you with making it harder for us to charge you."

Also, if you think just deleting your Facebook account means Facebook hasn't already logged all your data, you're an idiot.

The fact that this guy plead guilty to this is nuts. He's either a plant case (false flagger cops to a minor charge to help pad the DOJ narrative that they are winning lots of cases against "muh insurrectionists") or this guy got shafted by his own lawyer here.

13
MarginofFraud 13 points ago +13 / -0

I already know this is gonna sound empty as hell as I write it, but this guy demonstrably had his life ruined over false pretenses and he needs to sue the FBI for reputational damages and get the source of who tipped them off and sue that person too. This is fucked.

7
MarginofFraud 7 points ago +7 / -0

Member of a radical leftist black identitarian group that advocates against cops does the unsurprising and shoots a cop. Lemme call the FBI. They're gonna get right on it after busting another 500 grandma's for misdemeanor "parading" in the Capitol.

1
MarginofFraud 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're right. Slaves couldn't vote themselves. But the slave population counted towards both the number of representatives the slave states had and the number of electoral college voters they had, both of which impacted elections and political outcomes. My overall point stands. The 3/5 compromise was because the non-slave states thought it unfair that the slaves would be counted as whole persons toward the voting. Rather than counting them as whole people or dismissing them entirely, the non-slave states argued to a compromise.

5
MarginofFraud 5 points ago +7 / -2

He doesn't even know what the 3/5 compromise was. Yes, it's messed up that there was a law that treated the votes of slaves as counting for 3/5 of a full vote? Maybe. The reason that law was in place was because people OWNED SLAVES and could FORCE their slaves to vote they way they wanted them to. The non-slave states recognized that a populations of salves that get no actual rights but counts towards the Congressional apportionment and voting power of their masters is unjust and they did something about it. You can argue that it was calling a black person 3/5 of a person all you like (if you're an idiot like Millet here) but without the 3/5 rule, slavery would have lasted longer because slave states would have had a larger voting power.

Unlike Milley, I took middle school level history and actually remember the lesson from it. Clearly he doesn't.

6
MarginofFraud 6 points ago +6 / -0

Posing as a member of someone's business in the furtherance of a crime is called racketeering if I'm not mistaken (I may be wrong in that, I'm not a lawyer). I only say this because Project Veritas recently said they would press charges for racketeering over a journalist pretending to be a member of the org to try and dig up information from them.

1
MarginofFraud 1 point ago +1 / -0

Red states never locked down the way blue states did. If you didn't pick up on that at any point over the last year, idk what to tell you. My state never even ordered any businesses closed and was one of the first to end mask mandates. South Dakota never locked down or ordered a mask mandate at all. All of the first states to drop mask rules are red states. The states allowing people to go to church are red states. The states letting restaurants operate at full capacity are red states. I've visited several blue states this year and the difference is absolutely stark.

12
MarginofFraud 12 points ago +12 / -0

This. The GOP loves to grift but they at least set a red line at being able to keep the grift going. They are perfectly willing to be out of power if they at least have a seat at the table and could potentially win from time to time. The moment they accept this bill they know that a free nation (and also their grift) is over.

2
MarginofFraud 2 points ago +3 / -1

In fairness SCOTUS passed on hearing a case on the legitimacy of the election rules going in. This would be a different case wherein the underlying facts are that by way of error or outright fraud slates of states electors were awarded based on an incorrect tally of the votes and that absent those votes, different slates of electors would have been chosen and would have elected a different president. These are two separate arguments and where in the case of the first SCOTUS said it lacked jurisdiction, that may not be so in this case. I'm not saying SCOTUS will even rule fairly here either, just that once you have the clear and undisputable evidence that Biden's vote tallies were a sham, red states start to have the latitude to just ignore the edicts of the Biden administration and treat him with the same governing legitimacy as the Queen of England does in the US: which is zero.

8
MarginofFraud 8 points ago +8 / -0

You know what, that's a perfectly reasonable view. I agree. To explain to the left why theyre wrong requires going into a greater level of nuance than they are every obliged to live up to. As you said, they don't give a shit about the details, Biden is president and that's all that matters to them.

I guess it doesn't hurt to have a quick comeback anyways and to start introducing into their minds the legitimacy of these audits and the illigitimacy of the elections. Sure, the left will never admit the election was a scam, but around half of Americans include large percentages of centrists believe the election was rigged. Don't debate to change the lefts mind. Debate to change the minds of the bystanders watching.

25
MarginofFraud 25 points ago +26 / -1

Fuck that. She would not extend the same courtesy if the roles were reversed. Quit simping for Commies. She and her ilk invited cancel culture into our lives. She can deal with the consequences.

6
MarginofFraud 6 points ago +7 / -1

The unemployment rate bit is the most bullshit part of this. Trump was approaching historic low unemployment levels. A bunch of blue states shut everything down and killed their economies to "own" Trump. Them doing this spiked the unemployment rate. Then Trump brought it all the way down to about 6 percent before he left office. Biden managed to ride that course down to below 5.8 based on the trend Trump set but has since fucked up the economy even worse and the unemployment rate has actually gone up, moving in the opposite direction. This is what happens when you work off of nothing but snapshots in time with zero context. I'd like to say Psaki is extremely dishonest for it but it's also on Jordan here for giving her that type of framing to work with. Too many GOP lawmakers and low energy dudes on the right like to take these screenshots in time and turn them into a meme to dunk on the left, but the stronger argument comes out when you actually bother to include the context and break down the numbers. You share clickbaity meme format dunks on the left and that's all you will ever get back from them in response.

view more: Next ›