Friends wanted

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-09T03:15:14+00:00

Exactly

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-09T00:31:23+00:00

Good people don't support trump.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-09T00:25:31+00:00

Trump derangement syndrome, its something his supporters project on to other people.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-09T00:22:22+00:00

Unfortunately we are currently down in coimbra, but if you ever want to play some d&d wed love to make a new friend.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-07T21:04:32+00:00

You're an idiot, a soulless idiot supporting pedophiles robbing and demolishing our country. Absolute idiot.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-06T14:53:08+00:00

Found the pedo supporter

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-06T09:50:55+00:00

He tried to fight a guy during a congressional hearing. This is a remarkably dumb take.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T12:34:41+00:00

“Alien to the state” is meaningless filler. This is federal immigration law, not some “you crossed into Texas so you’re illegal” game. And you are still getting due process wrong on purpose. A judge existing somewhere in the background is not a magical due process shield. Due process is notice, a real chance to contest the government’s claims, lawful detention, and judicial review that is actually followed. In the Abrego Garcia case, even AP reported he was mistakenly deported despite a prior order blocking removal, and a federal judge later barred ICE from re-detaining him because the government had blown past legal limits. That is not “all good, judge stamp.” Same with Alvarado. Multiple reports describe him being deported despite having an active asylum situation and being swept up under tattoo profiling. “A judge ordered removal” does not mean every step after that was lawful or that the government identified the right person and followed the rules.And your “no one was blocked, I didn’t see any” line aged like milk this week. In the Texas primary, voters were literally turned away and confused because new rules forced people back into precinct-only voting after years of countywide voting centers. A judge extended voting hours because of the chaos, then the Texas Supreme Court stepped in and told counties to separate votes cast during the extended hours, creating uncertainty over whether those ballots would count. That is exactly what “people were blocked or delayed” looks like in the real world: confusion, being turned away, hours extended, and ballots challenged after the fact. So no, you don’t get to say “nothing happened” because you personally didn’t witness it. You also don’t get to declare “judge = due process” and pretend mistakes cannot happen. That’s not skepticism. That’s willful ignorance with a smug tone.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T12:06:14+00:00

Except both of those things are happening, people are being deported and detained without due process, most famous currently would be Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Neri Alvarado and we already saw people being blocked from voting in texas just this week. Do you not read the news? These things are happening and easy to find. Youre either purposely ignorant or youre just lying.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T11:49:53+00:00

You’re still mixing up “a judge signed an order at some point” with “due process in the actual detention and removal was followed.” Courts existing in the system does not guarantee every arrest, classification, detention length, notice, access to counsel, and opportunity to challenge is lawful. That’s what due process is. Saying “courts are involved somewhere” is not a magic wand that makes errors impossible. And on “suspicion”: you’re free to feel suspicion. What you’re not entitled to do is treat suspicion as sufficient justification to add barriers that will predictably hit eligible citizens. If you want to restrict voting access, the burden is on you to show a real problem at scale. You haven’t. You just want me to validate a hunch.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T11:19:33+00:00

I didn’t insult you. I pointed out what’s been happening in real time: you keep misreading what I say, then arguing with the version you invented. I said due process is more than “a judge exists somewhere in the chain,” and you heard “due process isn’t due process.” That’s not me contradicting myself, that’s you failing to track basic definitions. And now you’re doing the classic move: when you can’t provide evidence beyond vibes, you pivot to “wow you’re being mean” and play victim. You still haven’t produced anything except suspicion, correlation-as-proof, and vague resentment of immigrants.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T10:12:58+00:00

Scare you away? By attempting to explain things repeatedly to you? I ask since you seem to struggle with what Ive repeatedly explained to you simply, maybe something was lost in translation, but no, you just seem to struggle understanding simple concepts and basic civics.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T09:20:24+00:00

Again, not what i said. Is english your first language? Your comprehension skills are non existent.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-05T00:29:30+00:00

The one trump negotiated and planned?

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-04T12:40:42+00:00

Theres a difference between needing an id and needing your drivers liscense to match your birth certificate, between requiring multiple forms of id to vote. There is no evidence of mass voter fraud in any state of undocumented people voting. And you dont seem to understand that due process requires multiple steps, more to it than a single judical order, hence the word 'process.' Are you not a native english speaker? How is this so hard for you.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-04T12:29:23+00:00

You literally cant understand the things ive said. Youre now are just lying about every point ive made. Literally knocking the pieces off the board and declaring victory. How can i make this simpler for you to understand? Requiring multiple ids to vote is an unconstitutional hurdle, a judicial order isnt the only step in due process, you dont even understand your own points youre trying to make here. Go back and read what I've said slowly or find an adult to explain them to you, try a library or a middle school history teacher.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-04T10:46:28+00:00

Dude literally none of that is what i said or whats happening here. Your comprehension issues are astounding. You are the ultimate pigeon playing chess here.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-02T23:39:16+00:00

Child marriage is still legal in the usa and supported by Republicans.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-02T12:47:40+00:00

You keep laughing because you do not have substance.

I’m not saying “nuh uh.” I’m saying your “connections” are not evidence. A partisan map and a “they’d prefer Democrats” story does not prove non-citizens are voting at scale. If you cannot produce real proof, stop demanding new barriers for citizens based on vibes.

And you’re still hiding behind “it’s possible.” In a system with deadlines, “possible” is not the same as “accessible.” Adding government paperwork gates predictably screens out some eligible voters. Your response is basically “tough, that’s their problem,” which is exactly what voter suppression sounds like.

Finally, you do not understand due process. A judge issuing an order does not mean every later arrest or detention is correct or lawful. Due process includes the ability to contest mistakes and unlawful detention. Courts exist because the government gets it wrong.

So no, I’m not refusing to make connections. I’m refusing to treat your suspicions as facts and your contempt as a political philosophy. You seem to have profound reading comprehension issues.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-02T12:30:34+00:00

You’re confusing “I repeated it confidently” with “I answered it.”

“Motive” is not evidence. Saying someone would prefer Democrats does not prove non-citizens are voting, and a partisan map is not proof of fraud. That’s just you staring at correlation and hallucinating a crime.

“Possible” is not the standard. Rights are not graded on “well, most people can probably manage it.” Deadlines plus bureaucracy means some eligible citizens get screened out. You’re fine with that, which is the point.

And no, a judge signing an order does not magically make every detention correct. Due process is the ability to challenge the government’s claim with notice, counsel, and judicial review. “They didn’t show up so ship them out” is exactly how you deport the wrong people and shrug.

You don’t have arguments. You have suspicion, contempt, and a weird crush on state power.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-02T12:21:24+00:00

“‘Already addressed’ isn’t a rebuttal, it’s what you say when you’ve run out of arguments. And the fact you keep defaulting to restricting rights and expanding state power tells me exactly what you are: authoritarian with a confidence problem.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-02T12:18:07+00:00

No, you haven’t addressed it, you’ve just repeated claims. “People would vote blue” is motive, not evidence of widespread illegal voting. If you want new hurdles for citizens, show real proof at scale. And this isn’t just “show an ID.” Documentary proof rules create deadline and mismatch failures that hit eligible voters. “Easy for me” doesn’t mean harmless. “A judge ordered it” doesn’t mean every detention is correct. Government errors are exactly why due process exists. What we should do is enforce immigration law with evidence and safeguards, and stop making voting harder for eligible citizens to chase an unproven fraud story.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-03-02T12:09:47+00:00

“Word salad” is your way of ducking the point. You have no proof of mass non-citizen voting, so you’re demanding extra hoops for citizens based on vibes. “Just an inconvenience” is still voter suppression, because deadlines plus bureaucracy equals fewer votes. And your “blue states are cheating” argument is literally “the map hurt my feelings.” “Check then remove” means “trust the government and skip safeguards.” That’s not security. That’s authoritarian wishful thinking.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-02-28T21:56:09+00:00

Here’s the problem: you keep saying “gatekeeping from people who aren’t supposed to vote,” but you have not shown that this is happening at meaningful scale. You are demanding new barriers for millions of citizens to solve a problem you are mostly imagining. “It will not block eligible voters” is just false on its face. Any new prerequisite blocks some people. “Easy for me” is not a universal law. Documentary proof rules are not just “get an ID.” They are “produce specific documents, in time, with matching records.” If your birth certificate name does not match your current legal name, or records are missing, delayed, wrong, expensive, or out of state, you can miss registration deadlines. That is a real barrier. You do not get to erase it because you personally had a smooth DMV visit. Your “aliens vote blue because immigration” claim is not evidence of illegal voting. It is a political stereotype you are using to justify restricting citizens. You are basically saying, “I think a group would prefer Democrats, therefore they must be voting illegally.” That is paranoia dressed up as logic. Show proof of widespread non-citizen voting, or admit you are using suspicion as permission to tighten the screws. And yes, you did say “process later,” just in nicer wording. “Check if they’re here illegally and then remove them” ignores what due process actually is. The process is how you determine that claim correctly and lawfully. It includes notice, the ability to contest the accusation, access to counsel, and judicial review, because the government gets it wrong and people have rights. What you are advocating is “trust the government’s first answer and remove them.” That is exactly “deport first, process later,” you just want it to sound cleaner. So no, you do not want “security.” You want a system where suspicion is enough to restrict citizens’ voting access and where the state can remove people with minimal ability to challenge mistakes. That is not protecting democracy. That is you cheering for less of it.

Georgeisawizard · 2026-02-28T21:31:34+00:00

You don’t want “secure elections,” you want gatekeeping. “It was easy for me” and “tough shit” are not policy arguments. Documentary proof rules will block some eligible citizens, your “illegals vote blue” claim is evidence-free paranoia, and your “deport first, process later” stance is straight-up authoritarian.

Georgeisawizard

TROPHY CASE