President Donald Trump

You guys know that Deuces is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, right? There's a whole thread of him tarding it up from last year.

Trump already sitting here claiming next quarter’s disastrous economic numbers is Biden’s fault is ****ing wild

The most unapologetic unaccountable administration in literal American history who views taking accountability for anything that may be your fault as a reason you should be fired more than anything hegseth has done, and yet mouthbreathing dipshits like mongoloid value trolling the libs and cruelty to ethnic groups they aren’t a fan of so much more than their own lives getting materially worse cuz they stan’d this ****ing lunatic

I didn’t but that explain a lot in another thread and disregarding so much facts and actions of hundreds of millions of people saying otherwise …

I'm actually not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Most people are, whether they believe the official conspiracy theory or subscribe to an alternative theory. I'm agnostic. I've said for like 10 years or more ITF.

Me not believing your conspiracy theory does not make me a conspiracy theorist. Your conspiracy theory about the crime of 9/11 is not objective reality. It's a theory and, as a theory, has a lot of problems. Sometimes people believe theories that have a lot of problems. I don't think that is justified in the case of 9/11. You don't even think about it on that level. You just don't want to think about the implications of your theory being false because it fills you with dread.

.

This got dark real fast.

I guess the, "there will be short-term pain, nbd" grift wasn't cutting it, so he went back to old faithful.

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just have a theory that there is a massive conspiracy to cover up the true perpetrators of 9/11." Ok there bud, time for your nap soon.

I mean you said in the I/P thread you are willing to make false claims for rhetorical wins, so how do I know you actually believe any of this crap and don’t just want to motte and bailey towards another an unrelated topic you think you can get an optical win on?

*yawn*

Same as Trump having people arrested and sent to prisons in other countries, and not even trying to get back the ones sent by mistake, right?

So, you actually think Harris is a drunk?

Unfortunately, none of that matters. They need to run a male in order to win. Biden probably would have beaten Trump if he hadn't done the debate and continued as things were up until then.

I've explained that there doesn't need to be much of a cover up effort. Something happens, you tell people a narrative about why it happened, you pick and choose evidence which can be awkwardly shoe horned into fitting that narrative, use circular logic that apparently 95% of people can't identify as circular and invalid (as in not investigating the airline put options once the trail didn't lead to AQ) ignore any counter evidence to your conspiracy theory, label anyone who disagrees as a heretic.

You don't really have to cover things up when you are the police. Coverup is to withstand investigations. If you're doing the investigation and control all the evidence why would you need some elaborate cover up? From whom are you covering it up? Do citizens have the right to investigate all crimes in your world or something? You think the authors of the NIST report need to fake anything? Why? They can just do shoddy work in an attempt to come to a prefabricated conclusion. Do you think they would be like "We better fake this data good because otherwise some guy with no rank or access named Deuces is going to come in here and bust us."?

I think part of your problem is, in your head, you live in this Aaron Sorkin style universe where truth has all this power, where the best argument carries the day. That's just not how the world works at all. You think inconsistencies and omissions from, say, the 9/11 Commission Report, would condemn it or force congressional hearings that could lead to massive policy reversals. But there is no meta commission to investigate commissions. They can just write that the funding source of the attacks doesn't really matter (it actually said this) and there is no consequence. They don't have to fabricate evidence and cover up the real source. They are told to find whatever evidence they can that AQ did it and ignore anything else. No "coverup".

Dunces, I know you're a total space cadet, but try and remember what we talked about before. When Dunces gets carried away with his verbal diarrhea and bloviates on for more than one paragraph, ain't nobody got time for dat.

Not the same no, or I'd have said that.

chill, rob.

I cannot fathom how anyone would think it was a negative on Harris that she was a former prosecutor. If she prosecuted a lot of crimes, that means that she did her job well. Do you think the position shouldn't exist at all? Does that fact that someone was a prosecuting attorney really mean that she was likely to support genocide??

I think Jal might be from the "abolish prisons, abolish cops, give armed robbers and drug dealers more hugs" school of crime fighting.

I’m more of an abolish or change the societal things that create conditions for crime kind of guy. I guess you’re more of a keep lancing the boils and ignore the crap diet kind of guy.

Because as long as everyone's got food on the table, nobody is going to go out and rob a bank so they can buy a Lexus. Makes sense, that's just how humans work, as long as they are fed and housed, they never want more than they have.

Yep when the least worst is so right wing then trump etc is pretty much inevitable.

Just waking up and on your first cider, chez? Not bad going, it's only a bit past midday.

Right wing and poor judgement

Yeah blame the complete morons.

Honestly, you're becoming worse than craig. What in the actual **** have you been blabbering about for the last two days?

Wait, pointing out that some people will commit crime because of greed makes me responsible for Trump? Chez, are you, like, a real person who functions in the real world, or are you a very early piss poor attempt at a forum posting bot that escaped containment and has gone rogue for the last 25 years?

I'm sure you can understand if you want to. You're not a potted plant.

You didn't point out that some would commit crime anyway. Even the potted plants know that You dismissed the approach of reducing crime with societal changes

Try and follow along, slow coach. The conversation started when chillrob questioned whether jal thought we outright did not need prosecutors. I then made a tongue in cheek comment implying that jal thinks we don't only not need prosecutors, we don't need prisons or cops either. Rather than denying this, jal said that crime can be solved with societal changes. I then responded indicating that no, it can't, or at least not entirely.

At what point did I dismiss the approach of reducing crime with societal changes? You just completely made that up.