People make up shit all the time. The most hilarious aspect of your post is that you're claiming I'm lying, yet all I've done is impeach your source. That's not a lie, it's standard procedure when attempting to determine fact. Your response is that I'm lying. What's lying? Making up shit, right?

So your response to the fact that that quote appears to be an editorialization is that I'm making shit up when I have nothing to gain from it? Then you're acting indignant at the thought that a magazine that exists to make money would make up something to improve the quality of a stupid article?

Keep going bro. Or find the source of that quote. Who interviewed Trump, when, and where's the recording of the call? "Speakerphone" indicates it's a phone call, right? Who was he talking to, where's the call itself, let's listen to it in full context. Or, it doesn't exist. It's simple editorialization.

Nah you will just keep lying, no point.

Provide the phone call. Or admit that you're accepting unsourced claims as fact. AKA buying into conspiracy theories. AKA acting like a Q supporter.

I would just like to point out saying that he likes beautiful women on the younger side does not by any means implicate him being complicit in sex trafficking of minors.

I don’t have Epstein money, but I have plenty to do with what I choose. I personally love beautiful women. My wife is 22 years old. That quote can be directly applied towards me.

It is a hell of a stretch claiming I am all about recruiting high school girls to give sexy massages to my friends.

It is a pretty silly argument knowing that almost everything the media covers about Donald Trump is a hit piece.

This post was edited by WickedDarkJuggalos on Nov 20 2021 04:39am

All of Trumps kids are married to jews, if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know. Then you are a fool of a Took.

Republics AND democrats work for the same enemy.
There hasn't been a freely elected president since before anyone here was born.
Q has a lot of the info right (which is how they got people to follow).
But there is no one in the government that is going to save you from the government.
Think for yourself, question authority.

Unclear why the first part matters.

In regards to the second part, in general, I agree, which is why I constantly promote limiting the powers and scope of the Federal government and even State governments, and keeping most of the control at local levels.

A good example of why revolves around gun laws. Take a state like Oregon: It's most populated area is the Portland Metro area, which has seen a massive spike in violent crime. A natural kneejerk reaction would be to implement gun and other weapon controls. I'd argue that won't help, refunding the police and providing the prosecutorial support needed to legally crush Antifa would solve most of it. However, let's say you impose weapons controls, but because Portland is such a massive portion of the voter block, you implement it at the state level. Well, land-wise, Oregon is a rather huge state. Somewhere around the size of the UK, with a population around 4 million. Translation: close to a million people live in relatively rural conditions, where wildlife is a huge concern. So you take the guns away from somebody in Portland, where they have ready access to the police, firefighters, and there's not much wildlife of concern, no biggie, right? The rural person who's nearest neighbor is 15 miles away, the nearest police station is 60 miles away, and there are an abundance of mountain lions, wolves, and bears, what are they supposed to do? Now, if their home is attacked by another person, when seconds count, the police are an hour away? When they're attacked by a mountain lion or bear, or perhaps their herd are, they supposed to just get mauled, killed, possibly eaten?

The bottom line is, just as people are quite unique, so too is the political climate of any given area. States tend to focus all the tax income gained from rural areas and smaller towns and cities into the metros, where it's mostly wasted. The federal government mostly appears to focus all the tax income on buying votes and expanding the unelected positions for their friends in Washington DC. I guess the concern is, it's already at a point where most local control has been gobbled up by the states, and where most state control has been gobbled up by the federal government. How do you change that?

So your theory is what... Violent revolution? Good luck with that.

The problem is, unless you have a plan of what to replace the system in place with, the odds are likely that any replacement is going to be worse than what exists currently.

That is a direct quote from Thomas Jefferson. How can you say it is my theory?
It is not I that said, "Give me liberty or give me death".
But if you can't feel that spirit in your heart. Then something inside you has died and rarely awakens.

I understand the quote. There are numerous problems with it in a world of fiat currency, high tech jobs and militaries, militaries that can reach any portion of the world in under a day, people who cannot survive independent of supply chains, etc.

This is not the world of Jefferson. It's the world of today. Recognizing and understanding the differences and consequences related to those differences should be anyone's first step, before ever entering a political discussion, imo.