Invisible Man
Member

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJB again." Leave whatever it is you think you know about my personal life off the public forums. This is another thing that's been a recurring problem with you.

Where did I derail the conversation?

You're the one being dishonest. AF is an open and unabashed white nationalist. And you regularly cheer him on when he pushes that stuff. And we both know he's not the only one here who is. Nobody's using tactics from Rules for Radicals or resorting to any kind of dishonest ad hominem. If you don't want other people thinking you're part of that crowd, it starts with you distancing yourself from them.

Are you thinking there's a limited number of jobs to be had or something?

Libertarians don't think as highly of democracy as you do.

Mea culpa. I didn't consider how there were some things about Hitler like his vegetarianism that you folks might not admire.

Notice where the slope of that graph is its very steepest.

Was I wrong?

Good point. We should deport you and AF.

I love how you added "seriously," like that's going to surprise someone.

Come try it at my house.

Anybody who wants to host a couple of Venezulean immigrants has the right to do that. Neither you nor I have any right to interfere and tell them they can't. The same goes for anyone who wants to rent a place out to them. sell property to them, or hire them to work for them on property they own.

Hornberger wrongly assumes that everyone agrees about Hitler. A lot of the people reacting negatively to the OP think he got a lot right.

Good. Hopefully this reflects a genuine change for Trump. He'll still never admit he did anything wrong in his COVID response. But this move bodes well regardless.

Perhaps they are aiming at a certain clientele who are not the same as the typical drinkers of Bud Light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_wage_gap

Incentives like this country being safer, more free, and having better prospects for earning enough to live on than the ones they came from?

It follows from this that any people who are entering the USA without an intent to do any of those things aren't part of an invasion. Right?

Can you think of a worse one?

In 2023, when Elon was there, it was called "World Government Summit." The word "government" in the singular there probably referred to the concept of "government" as an abstraction (i.e. "government" was the topic of this summit, and it was a world summit about this topic), not referring to a singular entity of a world government.

It isn't now. It used to be. It was in 2023 when Musk spoke there. Why would you think that the name that appeared on their own marketing material was not official? What more does it take to make something official? https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/events/2023 The more important point you made was that the mere fact that Musk spoke there doesn't incriminate Musk in any way.

So it used to be called the World Government (sg) Summit, which name is still there in its web address, and they recently changed it to plural. When Musk attended, it apparently hadn't changed yet. He even says in his remarks, "I know this is called the World Government Summit." I don't see what difference it makes though. It seems like picking at the wrong detail.

Nevertheless, it looks like the gist of Musk's remarks there was pretty good. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/elon-musk-says-single-world-government-could-lead-end-civilization-world-government-summit

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again."

What is it that you envision the military doing in these sanctuary cities that federal civilian policing agencies can’t do?

I don't think it's any secret that there's dirt on him. Just because he can avoid prosecution for sex trafficking of a minor doesn't mean that there's not enough there to skewer him in Senate hearings. A line like, “someone is trying to recategorize my generosity to ex-girlfriends as something more untoward," may work in a criminal trial where the bar is set at reasonable doubt, but to the common person it comes across as an insult to their intelligence.

How drastic? A few million? OK, if you honestly consider that "drastic." Earlier you were pawning off much higher numbers than that. These votes weren't "found" since then. They were there all along, and anybody who wanted to be honest about the numbers knew they were there in the percent of votes not yet reported in each state. This number, percent reporting, was openly given by each state the whole time. Regardless how much fraud there was, there was no point in time when anybody was justified in claiming that Harris only got 66 million votes.

Go back and look at the dishonest game you played in our interactions in posts 116 through 128 of this thread. You pushed the narrative that there was a dramatic difference in the number of votes in 2020 and 2024 and that the difference was the fraud in 2020. You accused me of playing dumb by pushing back against that in my pointing out that a comparison between the final vote count in 2020 and only a partial vote count in 2024 was not apples to apples. And all this time you knew full well that the point you were making was bogus, that it was just a way to drum up the emotions of people whom you knew wouldn't have a long enough attention span to see the actual numbers undermine the claim, and you had this alternative explanation ready up your sleeve the whole time to use when that day arrived.

Update: The current tally is 74,191,964 votes for Harris and 76,733,150 votes for Trump, so a total of just shy of 151 million votes. This is with 97 to 99 percent reporting from all 50 states. California and New York are both at 97 percent. So overall, I'd guess there are still well over a million more votes to be counted across the country, so the total should end up above 152 million votes for the two major party presidential candidates this year, about 3 million below what it was in 2020.

Good for him. Some years back, the FDA was harassing some dairy farmers in Elkhart County, Indiana, about selling raw milk to people. The county Sheriff, Brad Rogers, wrote a letter to the DOJ saying that if federal agents came to that farm again without a warrant, he would arrest them. After that, the feds left the dairy farmers alone.

I don't know. It seems like the Constitution has been serving them pretty well so far. Why would they mess with something good (for them) like that?