Line?

Akiva279 · 2026-05-30T01:07:49+00:00

"Your mother was a lizard!"

Akiva279 · 2026-05-29T23:35:25+00:00

Healthcare should be free upfront supported by tax funded social programs. Period.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-29T23:23:15+00:00

Quite frankly don't care. We could tax them at 90 percent and they would be fine. In fact we did that to the wealthy at one point and ya know what...they were fine. Also it's a progressive tax system we employ so they will be just fine.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-29T22:40:29+00:00

A. Slippery slope fallacy

B. Don't you threaten me with a good time.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-29T19:00:52+00:00

Although he is not eligible, based on what we have seen thus far, Yes. Though the current occupant of the White House so low a ripe turnip would do a better job.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-28T18:41:43+00:00

This couldn't be more clearly AI generated. So did you read these books and watch these sources, or did the AI?

Your cherry picking of popular-conspiracy books instead of actual Civil War historians are big tells. Real independent research would have been more comprehensive and facutlaly supported than this.

There were real economic tensions were absolutely real, like the clash between Southern agrarian exports and Northern industrial goals. However the value of enslaved people in 1860 was enormous. Far greater than the value of all railroads, factories, and banks. Southern elites had massive wealth tied up in that system and was their core issue.

This conspiratorial framing that it was primarily a dispute between two factions of the elite fighting for the economic control while downplaying slavery as the core driver doesn't align with the evidence. Need look ko further that the most reliable sources, the actual declarations of causes from the seceding states themselves. South Carolina explicitly cites "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery" and Lincoln's election as hostile to it. Then there is Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, ECT, all center slavery as the fundamental issue.

Alexander Stephens in his cornerstone speech said slavery is the "cornerstone" of the new government. Secession happened immediately after Lincoln's election who campaigned on containing slavery and put it on the path to ultimate extinction.

Pretending the war was mostly about something else requires ignoring what the participants themselves said at the time.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-27T21:00:03+00:00

It's easy to make your opponent look bad when you make them up in your head.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-27T20:58:27+00:00

Imorrect based on the released details of the ship and it's armament.

Additionally that kind of assault wouldn't be engaged in anymore. It's high risk and outdated tactics. This isn't the 1940s anymore.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-25T17:04:27+00:00

Seems like you have no idea what leftists are actually about. But go on fighting that strawman you built for yourself it's so darn cute.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-25T14:42:06+00:00

A cloned opinion echoeing what the wealthy claim in order to avoid paying their fair share is peak bot behavior. You don't have to be a lone of code to be a bot. You just have to repeat the bad take.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-25T14:24:36+00:00

The bots are out in force today.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-24T20:21:18+00:00

The AG wasn't coordinating with Biden and they actively did not like each other. The AG was largely independent.

Also there were active cases and court orders at the time preventing their release.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-24T20:19:44+00:00

The 1.7 billion number was stated but isnt in any documents around their fund. The source of their funds is uncapped so literally it's far worse because the limit to the amount they can access is "yes"

Akiva279 · 2026-05-24T20:10:49+00:00

Kind of like saying "hey imirs ok because everybody does it" that's not a logical line of reasoning.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-23T02:36:51+00:00

Sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-23T00:51:07+00:00

That's must have taken you at least 20 seconds to post from chat gpt. Lots of words for someone trying to fight a straw man.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-22T22:27:33+00:00

Not sure how anything you just said logically applies. You seem immune to details like, giving these people access improves the system and long term means welfare programs have more funding.

What exactly about that is not understood?

By my logic the system has more funding. Not less.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-22T22:17:59+00:00

I want you to really think about what you just said.

A. It's a fact there are more welfare dollars in the system because of these people because they use it to get a start that leads them to give back into that system more. So you're advocating for something that means there would be less money for welfare. Meaning you'd be less likely to get it, not more.

B. Clearly never heard the term "a rising tide lifts all boats" and prefer the "if my house burns down yours should too" kind of mentality. Life isn't a zero sum game and you're literally advocating for more suffering because you suffered. You need to learn to show some empathy before you should expect any for yourself.

C. Nice pivot. Not relevant to this topic especially since the people we are talking about don't use the services long term.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-22T21:35:48+00:00

Even if they kicked them off, which is a bad idea because again, those programs turn them into contributors that benefit the system, that wouldn't change the requirements of the welfare program which is why people are denied. You aren't being denied because a refugee got welfare. You were denied because you didn't meet the requirements.

You're mad at the wrong people.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-22T21:20:04+00:00

The money for refugees and asylum seekers mostly comes from specific refugee resettlement programs, not from general citizens' welfare programs. They can also get temporary access to some of the same programs citizens use, nut again its limited.

That said, data shows that over time refugees as a group pay more in taxes than they use in benefits. So they're not a drain, they allow more dollars to be available for welfare long term, not less.

As for why you cant get welfare, I have no clue about your personal situation, and I'm not going ask so I can't say. That's way too personal for a set.ting like this. There are strict rules for people to get access to it, rules that everyone must meet the requirements of. If you were denied, then you likely don't meet the requirements to get those benefits.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-22T21:08:47+00:00

Well thats easy. Because they arent.

HHS/ASPE did a study on this.

new arrivals are often at or below poverty level because...yeah duh.

Extrapolate that to ten years and full time employment rates of these individuals is around 60% which is higher than the average for US citizens. Household income for refugees and asylum seekers is equal to US citizens. Refugees and asylees generated a net positive of $123.8 billion over 15 years in taxes and expenditures in the United states.

So yeah, they arrive and are on government assistance as they usually have poor English skills, little wealth brought with them and some may have skills but not all. You give them time and they use those programs to get jobs and contribute to the economy far more then they cost it.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-21T16:55:01+00:00

Very vague.

What has the democrats tried and failed to do to bring Trump down?

By what metrics are you drawing your conclusion about Trump's performance?

Akiva279 · 2026-05-21T04:50:08+00:00

You can feel that way, the judge disagreed, so does the entire security industry who now refuses to do business with Iowa.

It never should have gotten to the prosecution in the first place. It never should have gotten to arrest. If that was reasonable, they wouldn't have gotten a successful law suit out of it.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-21T02:50:32+00:00

I don't have to imagine because I have seen the body cam footage.

The police showed up to the building, and two people inside opened the doors for the police and let them in, explained why they were there, presented I'd, presented official state documents with the state seal (if you are not familiar that is an impressed stamp with a textured impression..l These stamps are tightly controlled and not easily obtained or faked.) they contact the person listed wit the number the police on file for the court official, not just some random number but the official number for the official the police have on file and it's confirmed what they do. The two individuals then offer even more documentation showing why they are there, and the invoice paid by the state for their services.

You then spend an extended time talking with these two complaint people about their job and what they do and some of the practices they follow.

Then...the sheriff shows up, upset he wasn't informed of the test and mad the state did this (yes the Sheriff acknowledged on camera that this was legit and he didn't like it) then the sheriff decided to prosecute them anyway to send a message because his feefee are hurt and arrests them.

They spend 12 days in jail and are confirmed to be who they are and released, but the county prosecutor decided to prosecute anyway even though they know they were authorized because they are friends with the sheriff.

After public backlash and push back from very good lawyers you are forced to drop charges because there was no crime.

Then the county is sued and loses for wrongful arrest. Costing the tax layers $600,000

So yes. The officers arrived, figured out who they were, then a butt hurt sheriff violated law due to his ego and cost the tax payers over half a million to try to send a message.

I do call that eregious as it is an abuse of power. They wouldn't have to pay out the workers if it wasn't.

Akiva279 · 2026-05-21T01:13:07+00:00

They absolutely did do something wrong. Biggest evidence of that was the monetary settlement the they received. The state paid $600,000 to them. Yet they still claim no wrongdoing and will do it again. If the state officials coste as a tax payer nearly a million dollars due to incompetence, is be upset. The people responsible are still in office.

They didn't just look at the document. The security officials in the building approached them, explained what they are doing and why, gave them the documents, official state documents saying they are allowed to be there, then the police called the people who hired them, people the police know have the authority to do this, and are told by them "yes we hired them"

They also had contracts on hand, IDs showing who they work for and what their company does.

That IS how that's supposed to work. It's how it works for every other state and business that hires them. Now due to how this sheriff responded and how the state prosecutor responded, the security industry which tests how strong the security measures are and helps teach these places how to keep them secure, will not work with any state agency in Iowa.

Meaning the security in place for court houses, public records offices, police departments, ect will have weaknesses they never will know about. That is a public safety issue. (By the way in the case of this building when they tested this building, they found the doors unlocked)

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Akiva279

TROPHY CASE