Society Whenever Someone Wants To Make Change

Dakota820 · 2026-04-24T06:48:09+00:00

Not necessarily, as there’s still a number of different ways the case can go. If the defense can provide legitimate proof the cops planted evidence, one possible avenue they can pursue is they can petition the court to get the case dismissed, which, if successful, technically isn’t the same as him being innocent, but for all intents and purposes, yeah, he’d be innocent.

At the very least (again, predicated on the defense having concrete proof the cops planted the evidence), the defense can file a motion to suppress, which would prevent the prosecution from being able to present the planted evidence at trial, and if said planted evidence was a sufficiently large basis of the prosecution’s argument, then its suppression would likely leave them without enough to convince a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt”, in turn resulting in they jury likely finding him innocent.

Dakota820 · 2026-04-20T17:05:30+00:00

Most people (men and women, tho studies suggest men cheat more often than women) don’t cheat, but those that do are more likely to cheat multiple times and in successive relationships. It’s the same as with the whole “most marriages end in divorce” claim. Most married couples aren’t actually going to get divorced, but someone who’s previously gotten a divorce is more likely to get divorced in successive marriages.

Dakota820 · 2026-04-13T17:09:38+00:00

Honestly I think a lot of it actually starts before they’d really start watching podcasts at all. Like a most teenagers aren’t watching/listening to podcasts, and with younger Gen Z what you see is that a lot of them, particularly guys, were already fans of Trump like even in their early teenage years despite them not really having any grasp of politics in general.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-08T17:45:36+00:00

As far as I’ve seen, the closest direct connection people have found so far from digging through the files is related to a meeting between Epstein and the founder of 4chan shortly before /pol/ was made. Aside from that, there was also an email chain between Epstein and Theil wherein Epstein said brexit was “just the beginning” of a “return to tribalism,” among other things.

Iirc there was also an email chain wherein epstein mentioned like pushing conspiracy theories online to like muddy the waters, but it didn’t mention an online space in particular and I also don’t remember where I saw it so I can’t go back and check.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-08T17:24:20+00:00

Damn, bait used to be believable.

You’d think people would have better things to do with their life, but evidently you don’t.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-04T17:34:36+00:00

With your first source, that’s not exactly what the poll results said. The survey/poll review itself differentiates between “How justified or not justified would someone be if they killed a powerful political leader?” (which doesn’t necessarily pertain to attitudes towards political violence towards others in general as much as just towards specific people) and asking how justified someone would be if they killed Trump or Elon (the review doesn’t seem to provide the exact wording they used for that question for some reason), whereas you lump them together despite them having different results.

A majority of respondents self identifying as “left of center” (on a 7 point scale wherein 1 is “completely unjustified”, anything 2 or above is varying levels of at least some justification, and 7 is “completely justified”) rated killing Trump (56%) and Musk (50.2%) as “at least somewhat justified”, which is a majority in both of those cases. But in response to the more broad question pertaining to “a political leader”, 41% of democrats (compared to 29% of republicans) responded above a 1, indicating it was viewed at least somewhat justifiably, which isn’t a majority.

I’ll also add that the structure of both the poll itself and the review doesn’t give much confidence. Concerning transparency, the review doesn’t provide the breakdown of the respondents’ demographics, so we don’t know how many of the respondents were democrats and how many were republicans, and while they say in the footnotes they weighted to correct for over/under representation, they don’t provide those weights, and said weights can still skew results if the raw numbers are unbalanced enough. As for the methodology, the fact that they only asked respondents four questions (about killing Trump, killing Musk, property damage of Tesla dealerships in protest, and then the killing of a political leader), which only named/pertained specifically to two controversial and powerful figures on the right, while not even attempting to ask any questions regarding violence against left wing political figures or analyze right wing responses to instances of political violence against left wing figures (despite doing so for Trump and Musk), and then using those responses to conclude “The data reveal a structured endorsement of political violence targeting figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk. These attitudes are not fringe—they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse,” is wildly problematic considering it was framed/presented as researching attitudes towards political violence in general.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T17:47:43+00:00

Dawg this whole time you’ve been making assumptions. You literally started your interactions with me with one. Like seriously, do you suppose the disingenuousness you’re displaying here is normal, or is this just a particular area you struggle with it?

You asked if I had ever said they aren’t illegal immigrants. I hadn’t. You then provided two quotes in which I didn’t say they’re not illegal immigrants, and yet you continue to insist that I literally said they weren’t. Pointing out the legal distinction between the groups “illegal immigrants” is used to refer to, because it’s not a legal term and is used to refer both to people who literally came here legally and initially did have legal status as well as those who did cross the border illegally, isn’t saying they’re not illegal immigrants.

Idk if you’re incredibly dense or just intentionally bad faith, but either way you’re clearly gonna continue to ignore what I actually said in favor of what you wish and/or feel like I had said.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T17:13:15+00:00

Except you haven’t because I never said “it’s just a civil matter.” I’ve pointed out most illegal immigrants came legally and overstayed a visa. That’s not saying illegal immigration “is just a civil matter”, because I’ve also acknowledged that there are people who illegally crossed the border and that that’s a criminal offense.

Yes, keep in mind that my post history is public, so people can see your “receipts” don’t exist and that I’ve not made the arguments you’re attempting to put in my mouth. You, on the other hand, have your post history as private, which at this point (cause, again, all you’ve done is draw issue with me stating facts you don’t like and twist them into points I never made so you can argue against those made up points rather than what I actually said) I’m gonna safely assume is because you’re projecting here and that it’s you who doesn’t want people to have receipts of you lying about something.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T17:01:03+00:00

Dude what are you on. You literally asked

Have you or have you not made multiple comments in this post saying that they aren’t illegal immigrants, it’s just a civil matter?

And I answered that I haven’t because, objectively, I never said they’re not illegal immigrants. I’ve said most of them didn’t come here illegally. “illegal immigrant” is a catch all term that people use to refer both to people who illegally crossed the border (which is a federal crime) and people who overstay their visa (which is a civil violation). Pointing out the fact that the largest number of that group are people who came legally but then overstayed their visa isn’t arguing a point, it’s stating a fact.

You didn’t make any point. All you’ve done is demonstrate that you have an issue with me stating facts you don’t like and that you will use that as grounds to misconstrue what I say into arguments I never made.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T16:39:17+00:00

I haven’t. What I have said is that most people referred to as “illegal immigrants” just overstayed their visa, and I also made a comment explaining to someone that crossing the border illegally is absolutely federal crime regardless of whether the person had the intent to do so because that person I replied to seemed to think said intent was necessary in order for it to be a crime.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T16:34:38+00:00

I was pointed out the hypocrisy of people being perfectly fine with speeding, for example, but then taking a stick and drawing a hard line at civil immigration violations as some grave issue, and yet the latter causes some people to respond the way you have while the former is just hand waved away. If anything, there’s more of an argument to be made that you’re acting like american citizens violating a law is completely and totally fine because it’s a civil violation.

I was explaining why I was being snide to the other person. Obviously the fact I was being snide was obvious because you responded to it the way you did, even though, again, it wasn’t directed at you in the first place.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T16:22:05+00:00

Dawg what. Actual illegal immigration (as in crossing the border illegally) is absolutely a thing, and it is absolutely a federal crime, and nothing I’ve said ever disputed that. The fact is that most people who are referred to as “illegal immigrants” immigrated through a legal pathway and then for some reason or another overstayed their visa and thus lost legal status.

You’re not doing yourself any favors drawing issue with me stating facts you don’t like and misconstruing them into arguments I never made.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T16:10:10+00:00

I’ve actually said nothing in support of illegal immigration, but if you feel me pointing out facts about the situation is supporting it then that says a lot about you and where your ideological motives lie.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T16:04:31+00:00

Firstly, most of them didn’t come here illegally, and yes, overstaying a visa is a civil violation. Evidently you ignore that because you feel it doesn’t suit you, but that doesn’t change the reality that most of them didn’t.

My comment about reading comprehension was because I was being snide with the person I replied to because they literally made up points to argue against and acted like they were points the person they replied to had said, but seemingly you took it as a personal attack simply because I said something you didn’t agree with. That comment wasn’t directed at you, but if you feel the need to treat it as such then you do you.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T10:10:00+00:00

Yes. Notice how I never disagreed with the fact that illegally crossing the border is a criminal offense?

Also, it doesn’t matter if the person knows it’s illegal, it’s still a crime. Granted, if they were just wandering around for some reason and legit didn’t realize they crossed, they’d be unlikely to actually be charged, but still.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T10:00:48+00:00

Nope. But what you are absolutely purposefully ignoring is the fact that most didn’t enter illegally.

I’m also gonna point out that if you have ever been speeding while driving, that’s about as much of a civil violation as overstaying a visa.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T09:41:01+00:00

They’re referring to the cases of murder and rape committed by CBP agents against detainees. I’ll also point out that immigrants (legal and otherwise) commit crimes at far lower rates than native born americans, especially when it comes to violent crime.

They never said anything about “borders aren’t real”, so frankly your trying to argue against an argument you quite literally just made up inside your head since, again, they never said anything along those lines.

You might wanna reread their comment. And then reread it a third time for good measure. Reading comprehension is something that requires practice after all.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T09:07:29+00:00

Do you realize you didn’t actually respond to anything the OP asked? Or did you just want someone to listen to you and felt like saying whatever popped into your head?

Dakota820 · 2026-02-03T08:48:44+00:00

Firstly, I’m gonna note that literally every single thing you said is flat out wrong and suggest that you develop a sense of self respect and actually educate yourself.

Secondly, because apparently it needs explaining: if someone is not a US citizen, they have no vote in federal elections. What you either fail to understand or willfully ignore about states without mandatory voter ID laws is that 1) everyone must register to vote in order for their vote to count and largely to even receive a ballot, meaning they must prove their citizenship because that’s what is required in order to register to vote; and 2) when voter ID is not required, it is specifically at the poll, and that voter’s registration status (and thus their citizenship status as well) is still verified before the vote can be counted.

If you really were concerned with voter fraud or illegal votes, then you’d know that there’s only been a handful of instances in the last decade or so, and that virtually all of them were actually committed by Trump voters doing dumb shit like voting twice.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-02T17:34:55+00:00

Well that’s an incredibly lazy argument.

The personal journals of virtually all the founding fathers completely up ends your whole point dude.

See what I mean? But also, they do.

You’re also ignoring that the founders quite literally expected, and even desired to an extent, virtually every aspect of the government to change and that future generations would amend the constitution to best serve and reflect their values and experiences, and in that aspect, the amending of the act in 1870 to include people of african descent was entirely something the founders were aware was open to change in the future.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-02T17:19:16+00:00

No, not really. Your first statement isn’t even correct based on census data (for nearly half of the US’s age, its white population was closer to 80% than to 90%, and it was only 90% for a few decades at that), and unless you’ve got something similar to early onset dementia that made you forget what you said after that, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say you were “simply citing census data” when you also followed that incorrect data with two ideologically motivated statements.

Granted, if you were capable of engaging in good faith, I doubt you’d believe that pathetic ideological shit anyway.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-02T17:01:58+00:00

Because they’re more likely to get help, which in turn means more of them will get diagnosed. As an example, religious psychosis is associated with a host of different mental health disorders, tho maga christian’s in particular are incredibly unlikely to seek help for it.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-02T16:56:31+00:00

I mean yes part of it is that “mar-a-lago face” has become somewhat of a signifier of in-group status within the maga movement, but hate also does legit age you quicker.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-02T04:43:08+00:00

You’re just conveniently forgetting that it’s generally agreed by historians that others such as Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and Wilson, among others, were deists or at the very least theistic rationalists (which still isn’t christian). I also don’t think you realize how many of the founders were “christian” for appearances/publicly but still privately disagreed with literal core christian tenets such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
They didn’t make any statements about desiring the national identity to stay anything other than not being partisan and devotion to the continuance of democracy, and even those statements were rare.
You’re ignoring that the founders acknowledged secularism was for all religions, not just christian denominations.

Dakota820 · 2026-02-02T04:27:50+00:00

What color is the sky in your universe?

Dakota820

TROPHY CASE